Didn't read the article, I just wanted to pop in and say that Gene Roddenbooby was a pinhead.
Posted on 11/10/2004 2:09:47 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
You know, I've been trying to understand the bizarre ideological inconsistencies of the past week as our blue state liberals advocate Voltaire out of one side of their mouths and Russell Means out of the other. This spectacle of us "rednecks" being pummeled by a "tag team" of Charles Darwin and Sitting Bull has been bothering me for a very long time (for years, even). It's just that the whole issue has been omnipresent over the past seven days as the coasts fume at us for both rejecting Darwin and unforgivably altering the beliefs of "indigenous" religions (all that is lacking is a pulpit in some backwater rural Black Pentecostal Church being used to attack chr*stianity). So pardon me as I continue to ruminate on the keyboard so that my frustrations may be shared with others.
It is indeed puzzling to the point of maddening to be called "neanderthals" (as an insult yet!) by evolutionists, animal-worshippers, and fans of "indigenousness." Were not the "neanderthals" closer to Our Forebears The Beasts than modern man, with his genocidal destruction of Eskimo mythology? The whole "cave man"/"neanderthal" insult is simply loaded with irony (considering that no Australian aborigine or native of New Guinea will ever be so designated). Yet liberals are ultimately Hegelian idealists, whether they ascribe historical evolution to a "world soul" or the class struggle, and Hegelianism teaches that human history is teleological, flowing in one direction from the alpha point of the past to the omega point at "the end of history," and the term "neanderthal" suggests that one is violating this flow by refusing to "keep up with the times." Do these people not realize they are contradicting themselves when they insist that "indigenous pipples" must never be defiled with Western rationalism or forced to "keep up with the times?" Evidently they do not. Unfortunately, many conservatives simply accept the double standard and wear the liberal invective as a badge of honor. Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person to see the incongruities in the alliance between Voltaire and the "noble savage." But that alliance seems to be at the very heart of the "rednecks should be vegetarian rocket scientists while 'natives' should be shamanistic hunter-gatherers" theme.
I have found what I believe to be a pop culture analogy to the liberal schizophrenia that declares one person's "low intelligence" to be another person's "legitimate cultural expression." And I have found it in, of all places, Gene Roddenberry's definitive secular humanist vision of the galactic future, "Star Trek." Allow me to explain:
As you will recall, Star Fleet's prime directive was never to interfere in the internal development of other planets. This was of course routinely ignored in any episode whose plot would have been stymied by it, but I think the general idea of a "prime directive" directed toward "others" is operating in the liberal mind. The Federation was made up of many races and cultures, and I doubt very seriously that they showed this extreme latitude toward each other, as it would have made "federation" impossible. They could quite legitimately conduct coups or discipline unruly planets or cultures of their own. But when it came to "the other," they were determined not to judge. So the "prime directive" translated as "we hold our own to a standard; we refuse to judge 'the other.'"
By now the reader can easily see where I'm going with this. The liberal elites seem to regard whites (or perhaps more correctly, Anglo-Saxons) as visitors from another world come to study this one and its quaint peoples. Therefore, we require the strictest standards of our own (we cannot afford to subscribe to "fantasies"), but we do not wish to leave so much as a cultural "fingerprint" on anyone else. Liberals become furious when "rednecks" forego this "obvious" mission and insist on the perks of "indigenousness" for themselves (eg, their own "motherlands" and supernatural beliefs). Poor rural Anglos who continue to subscribe to their ancestral "mythologies" and taboos are savages--but woe betide anyone who applies this term to "the other!"
This theory explains the double standard with regard to South African apartheid. Cultural relativism had no bearing here. South Africa was not "the other" but "us," and "we" were interfering with and depriving the "natives" of freedom. At the time of the anti-apartheid crusade it was Communism that was being given a free pass, but I think the example becomes even more stark if we choose to compare liberal anti-apartheidism to a contemporary and decidedly non-Communist exampe, ie, the enslavement of Blacks by Arabs in the Sudan. Unlike South Africa, "we" are not doing anything. Because "we" have not interfered, Sudan becomes the beneficiary of the "prime directive" ("this is their culture") in a way the rulers of old South Africa did not.
Let's summarize my theory so far: "we" are here to study "them." "We" must confront and acknowledge reality and rationality in order to perform our studies successfully. However, "they" cannot be polluted by our rationalism. "We" may exact any number of approprite punishments of those members of "us" who want to participate in the life of this planet, but "we" do not make any value judgements whatsoever about "the other."
This actually goes beyond mere politics. Has anyone else ever noticed that vegetarians and anti-hunters do not object to hunting, trapping, skinning, or meat-eating by "indigenous pipples?" In fact, they are assumed to have the same right to hunt and kill animals for food that wolves and other predators are (perhaps liberals believe deep down inside that "indigenous pipples" are still "animals?"). Not only must the "invader" not kill the animals of this planet for food, but he must not interfere in predation by the native species (spiders, wolves, South American Indians, Southern Blacks). It is truly astounding that this condescension (camouflaged as it is by inward-directed ridicule and outward-directed solidarity) is not noticed by more people. At any rate, I would gladly bear that condescension rather than the compulsory "observer" status that has been assigned me by my "betters."
Anybody know what planet we "observers" are from? I'd like to return there now, please!
I would like to point out another dichotomy caused by the "prime directive" mentality. All our liberal dissidents are threatening to move to Canada or Europe. Considering the celebration of the heritage of "la raza" by the Left, why do none of them plan on going to Mexico instead? My theory is that the "us/the other" worldview splits Leftism into two varieties, what we may perhaps call "First World Leftism" (the kind we are supposed to suffer under) and "Third World Leftism" (which is going to "liberate" everyone else). American Leftists can go to Canada because its "indigenous" population has already been decimated (too bad, but oh well, there's nothing we can do about it now) whereas Mexico is still the Sacred Mother Soil of La Raza Unida, its "autochthonous" children who emerged from her bosom and alone have the right to live there. While Canada will become a secular yet somehow multicultural paradise, Mexico will be restored to its former and rightful greatness under the Aztec Emperors, before the Foreign Devil violated its virgin soil and imposed his vile religion on the rightful occupants, effacing the unparalleled wisdom with which their "gxds" had graced them. Canadian Leftism will be that of Voltaire; Mexico's will be that of his "ally," the "noble savage."
This example illustrates the vast differences between the "first world" and "third world" Leftism. First World Leftism is rational, secular, and scientific (though refusing to judge the "cultures" of "the others" in its midst). It is pacifist and anti-nuclear, guilt riddled over its past "crimes," perhaps vegetarian, and ultimately committed to blend into an abstract "family of man."
Third World Leftism (though considered the "fraternal comrade" of First World Leftism), is quite a different matter. It is devoid of any sense of guilt but rather furiously, mystically nationalistic. It has no intention of ever ceding its national sovereignty to foreign devils or international bodies. While the First World Leftists (FWLs) are destroying their military establishments the TWLs are engaged in a military buildup of monumental proportions. While FWLs are dismantling their nuclear reactors and erecting solar panels the TWLs are exercising their Right As A Sovereign Nation by building nuclear reactors. FWL nations contract into themselves, TWL ones engage in blatant military adventurism. FWLs critique their religious heritage in the light of "reason; TWLs celebrate their "glorious heritage" and how the "foreign devil" was unable to quench The Ageless Wisdom Of Our Forefathers with his vulgar, upstart religion. The FWLs instill disdain for their national heritage even while teaching docile submission to a totalitarian government, while TWLs are ready to pour out every drop of blood for the Sacred Socialist Motherland Which Has Been Our Home For Untold Thousands of Years.
Perhaps the easiest way to concretize these differences between First and Third World Leftisms is to imagine a May Day celebration under each one. In the First World Socialist State there would be long-haired, drug-addled, guilt-soaked hippies flashing the "peace" sign or throwing rocks. But under the Third World Leftist regime May Day is quite a spectacle. Millions upon millions of short haired, clean shaven, well-armed young men and women in military uniform (from ages five to fifty) march in lockstep across the Plaza Of The Revolution to the sound of martial music, carrying the National and Party Flags and, above all, pictures of the Great Leader, the Personification Of The National Essence, The Husband Of Every Wife And Father Of Every Child; and the whole gigantic party ends with a rousing, fist-shaking, arm-waving speech by the Leader as he assures his people that they have never ever done anything wrong in their history ever. Then he invites his First World Leftist hippie guest to join him in condemning the evils of fascism.
Anyway, this represents some of my thinking in trying to come to terms with liberal/leftist hypocrisy in regard to these matters. I wish that my fellow conservatives would stop gladly accepting the "ignorant neanderthal" label and actually force liberals to confront their hateful hypocrisy. This is not likely to happen, but it would be interesting to learn how liberals justify their inconsistencies in their own minds (assuming they've even thought that far).
Enough of the "I'm an ignorant redneck and I'm proud" reactions. Let us write liberal publications and ask liberals with whom we come in contact if they have indeed adopted a "prime directive" that justifies their corrosive scientism toward our beliefs and their awed respect of everyone else's.
Comments, anyone?
Ping for your interest. Please ping to others whom you think might be interested.
Didn't read the article, I just wanted to pop in and say that Gene Roddenbooby was a pinhead.
Ping for your interest. Please share with others who might be interested in the topic.
Ping to others who might be interested.
For your possible interest. Please share with others who might be interested. Otherwise, pardon the intrusion.
Er . . . um . . . ping?
Pretty good.
Thank you.
I'm an infamously tough grader, too.
I once gave a young lady a D on a college term paper and wrote, "This is a gift."
She dropped out of college.
;-)
Now you just need to get it published in the NYTimes
Bump for later read.
I know how to win over the other side to vote for me I'll call them dumb, ignorant, bible thumping knuckle draggers. </sarcasm>
A good book to read is called "The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando de Soto. The guy is a Peruvian. The book came out in 2000. Its become something of a sensation in the academic world. The book asks the basic question "why are some countries rich and some countries poor."
The answer is that all the rich countries have monetized their properties. They are surrounded by a halo of "invisible wealth" as de Soto puts it. That is you can buy and sell and--most importantly--borrow against-- land and most assets in the rich countries whereas you cannot in poor countries. You can't buy and sell with any ease most of the land and assets in poor countries. These countries don't have the political, legal and bureaucratic infrastructure that supports property. So its dead.
However, it would be in the interests of these countries to create the infrastructure that would support respect for property.
They just don't get it yet.
Just a talking point.
Also reject closed federal/state/local union shops.
To the disciples of Voltaire and Hegel, "noble savages" are useful only inasmuch as they can be used as a controllable mob to storm the ramparts of their ideological adversaries. They have no real "love" for the proletariat, the peasant masses, the brownshirt mob. They only wish to control them and to use them.
Not being this articulate, or on the other hand, being this articulate and burned out, I haven't found any Liberals classically liberal enough to engage in discussion. The all seem to get red faced and white knuckled and revert to ad hominem attacks. But then I haven't read Ann Coulter's latest book yet...
Interesting article though, and worth a second read.
I fully agree with your "we are here to study them" theory. The left do think this way. However, I think, they tend to choose the First World leftist escape holes because deep down, they know where the life is better and the freedoms they grew to take for granted are available and not under the imminent threat (apart from the Left themselves, of course.)
Of course, there are always some particularly delusional characters who choose various dictatorships as places to search for that 'ideal' (but that's just Darwin's theory in action.)
I have thought about "Star Trek" and the Left as well.
But I have not gone to such depths as you have or the same direction.
My observation of the Left is how they have reacted to the threat of Islamofacism. They truly believe that we can talk out our differences -
I call it "The Star Trek Assumption".
They seem to think we are living in a "Star Trek" world.
That you can solve any problem with talk.
Their idiocy can only make this world more dangerous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.