Posted on 05/26/2002 3:31:09 AM PDT by danielmryan
But McCarthy saw communists where there were none.
It's bad enough to have real enemies but adding imaginary ones just makes things worse.
Just for the record, I despise communism and communists.
The point is that Joe McCarthy couldn't hold a candle to Vlad Lenin when it came to inflaming the mob. When the Senator was censured, he crawled off and died. Lenin would have laughed in the Senate's face and "taken it to the streets!"
And if you're wondering what the point of the sarcasm in the above paragraph is, it's that the American 'progressives' simply sucked up to Lenin and the other high officials of the USSR.
Simply on the basis of Vladimir's WILL TO POWER, succesfully implemented.
The limousine liberal never changes, folks. If the government of Saudi Arabia falls to al-Qa'ida itself, the limo-libs will begin sucking up to them.
You know why? Because one of the central class attitudes of the American uppers is laughing at the downfall of the successful.
Or at least label it for the Vanity post it is.
I'd say its one of the more general aspects of human nature.
This is a grim start to a Sunday morning, were you up late with Tail-Gunner Joe's favorite beverages?
As far as this being a "vanity" post, I guess you could say that it is. That graffito'd picture wasn't really meant to be somber; I thought some of you'd get a kick out of seeing a take as to why something always rang false when it came to "American communism."
It's pretty obvious that the American prole avoided the Marxist-Leninist party like the plague. I thought the above picture might have given you reason to laugh at the "seminar socialists."
If some of you think I struck out in this regard, all I can say is that maybe my sense of humor is out of joint right now.
All on its own, sad to say. Without beverages.
Communists are a plauge. Nuts like McCarthy only serve to give the communist plauge credibility.
It is a little out of joint, you're stretching too hard. May today get better for you.
Because one of the central class attitudes of the American uppers is laughing at the downfall of the successful.I'd say its one of the more general aspects of human nature.
I might as well make a notation about this. The uppers in democratic society not only make laughing at the mistakes or specific failures of high achievers part of their way of life, but they also use these specific incidents to overgeneralize into a prejudice concerning any public hero. They also tend to exert this attitude at certain characteristic times - like when "their" home team loses the state championship.
This attitude tends to be covered up by an air of syrupy 'sympathy' or else cloaked in a mask of 'disinterest'. These are the two most used cover-ups.
If you heard recently that "Canadians despise success," here's why it seems to be so: The Canadian uppers act like yours, only we're more under the thumb of ours than you are of yours; no-one dared link the "be satisfied with your personal best" philosophy pushed in the 1970s with Prime Minister Trudeau's upper-class origins. If they had, then Trudeau's public musings would have been examined a little more critically.
Irregardless of what nation we're talking about, though, the above explains why the upper class has a natural affiliation with Wall Street, or Canada's Bay Street. Sad as it sounds, a bitter attitude towards other people's success tends to make you a better investor than Main Street optimism does.
I can't really think of a wisecrack to end this one. It looks like the whole topic is too draining.
Strange as this may sound, this might be a real service. Not everyone has the desire to succeed, and few have the desire to really excel. A good gripe fest tends to spare the feelings of those who don't, and the uppers agreeing sends the message that there's more than envy motivating the gripes.
Robert Heinlein once said that the true character of a society is always found in the behaviour of the people in the slums. This is because the lowers tend to use the real behavior of the uppers as a sort of guide to what they themselves can get away with: this shows in both opinions and actions.
On this point, I should add that the difference between an upper class worthy of the name and the "bourgeois" tends to show up in their attitude towards those duties. A true upperclassman validates the gripings out of the goodness of their heart, whereas the bourgeois type regards it as an 'investment' to be collected on by pinching those gripers whenever earnings need to be driven up...by calling them lazy. This is the more abstract equivalent of the stereotypical pinch-faced dowager marking the level of the liquor bottles with an "X" on the bottles' outside.
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.