Self-Hatred As Political Postulate And Orientation

Here are some quotes from a post that you should read in its entirety:

I’ve come to believe there really is such a thing as American self-hatred. …

It all comes down to idealizing “The Other,” and thereby smearing one’s own: Self-hatred is the hidden secret of multiculturalism….

Jane Goodall devoted her life to studying chimps in the wild, an heroic commitment because chimps are well-known to be dangerous. After the first decade of field work she was shocked, shocked, to find out that murder, infanticide and rape were everyday fare for her favorite critters. Bachelor groups of chimps routinely hit the borderlands to commit a little mayhem on neighboring clans. Chimp mobs run wild to chase down monkeys to eat. (Why did she think they had those long canine teeth? To peel bananas?)

But this is not about chimps, nor about native peoples. I’m only talking about the incurable tendency of liberals to kowtow in awe of “The Other,” as the trendy English professors like to call it. According to academic myth, The Other is supposed to be the scapegoat for one’s own unacceptable side; there is something to that, but for the dominant culture of America today, the truth is exactly the opposite. For liberals, it is The Other who is above criticism, and it’s the in-group — like us folks — who are irredeemably Evil.

There is a lot more to this piece than the above quotes can suggest. Don’t miss this opportunity.

More Organizing Needed, Obviously

Number 70 of the PenPo reported on the “Organizing for America” campaign Obama mandated (links: story here and a video on YouTubethat was still up as this went to press). Outcome reported in the left-leaning WaPo as follows:

In fact, the canvassing of Obama’s vaunted e-mail list of 13 million people resulted in just 114,000 pledges — a response rate of less than 1 percent. Workers gathered 100,000 more from street canvassing. The DNC got to 642,000 by making three photocopies of each pledge so that each signer’s senators and representative could get one.

The One should be philosophical. “How,” De Gaulle once asked, “can you govern a country which has 246 varieties of cheese?” Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

Nonsense Is Nonsense, Even If You Insist It Is Exempt From Rational Examination Because It Expresses Religious Opinion

For an interesting discussion of what the president’s wife thinks about the health of our souls, and her revealing views on a number of other topics that animate her, see this commentary.

Why does it matter? Faith is both the denial of reason and a germ of tyranny. One of the greatest dangers humanity has ever faced — and still faces — is the zeal of the missionary. No one is more sure of his mandate than a person who has been instructed by the creator deity.

In so far as religion minds its manners, one can live with neighbors who practice it, but…it always has difficulty tolerating Liberty. That’s because it is loath to suffer those who point out that preposterous claims based on no evidence whatsoever are necessarily meaningless and cannot impose a code of conduct.

Ask yourself how much influence the president’s wife has, and whether it might be greater than Nancy’s ability to impose her astrological inanities on White House procedure.

Parenthetical observation — A lot of folks believe that what the USA has long needed was a black president. They have a point. This newsletter has its wish list, as well: an unmarried atheist (of whatever gender and sexual orientation) in the White House would be a welcome development.

A Gold Mine Of Information For Those Interested In Anthropogenic Global Warming

The introduction to this resource reads as follows:

Okay, you constantly hear from the Obama White House, the leading Democrats, the main stream media (TV, newspapers, magazines and radio) and Hollywood celebrities about the need for the regulation of CO2 emissions and investing in green energy. But what you’re hearing is just one side of the issues. What is being said on the other side? What are the intended and unintended consequences of CO2 regulation and green energy?

Here is a wide range and selection of articles and postings on a variety of issues pertinent to Obama’s grand strategies and schemes – issues that ‘converge’ under the wide umbrella of ‘Climate/Energy/Economy.’ (These writings are not grouped or ranked in any fashion, other than that newer publications tend to be closer to the top of the page.)

See also this extremely useful web page that was created by the folks who provide the above resource.

Links

This is hilarious! Hey, you gullible twits at The Guardian, it was a joke, a hoax! Just how stupid are you??

China’s strengths and weaknesses explained concisely.

The Obama administration is taking a close look at its ability to kill people with robots; as you might expect (sigh), lawyers are crawling all over the subject, babbling about present capabilities and fancied future possibilities. It’s not that complex: you put your telescopic sight on an enemy or you view him through a camera mounted on a plane above him, and you pull the trigger or you press a button and the plane shoots a rocket that homes in on a laser that has painted him. The legal complications arise depending on where you are and where he is, not from the technology used to kill him. But as this newsletter has said, there are too many lawyers in government, and they are literate ruminants.

Cripes, no wonder he uses a teleprompter every time he speaks! — Parenthetically, note that no one can say any of his speeches include remarks that are less than deliberate. Remember that when this newsletter mentions yet again that federal domestic security force he insists he must have.

Mass murder! “Police said they arrived within two minutes” of being called. Good job. “Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers.” What?? Oh, good grief… So how long did the wounded inside the building have to wait?

The new math? No, it’s as old as lying. What’s new about it is that it’s permitted for “progressives” only. (You thought this one got past the PenPo, didn’t you? Heh, heh.)

Bad business, big bucks, and bailouts. When the inevitable happens, who should pay?

The lie Hillary repeated is the lie the attorney general believes, and it is the lie you should understand before you follow the lead of ignorant ideologues.

This could be the beginning of something big.

For animal lovers — a site with some nice videos.

Putin, Yeltsin, Russia and The Nation: a study in journalistic bias. It’s all introduced here, and if this does not raise very serious questions about the integrity of a venerable US news magazine, nothing will. It’s not a new theme, but it’s important because it proves that no matter how many dirty journalistic tricks are exposed, media deceit is still a favorite tactic of those who hope to push the USA to the sinister end of the political spectrum.

It may look like a tea bag, it may smell like a tea bag, and you may even be able to make a cup of tea with it, but…it’s actually dangerousand could have horrible consequences.

Bush Doctrine, Soros Doctrine. If you don’t grasp those concepts, you don’t know much about the basics of US foreign policy. Then there are Press Rules for Bush, and Press Rules for Obama. Not the same. Someone noticed. Finally there’s the Bush administration attitude toward the US constitution, and how Obama plans to deal with that document — again, not the same.

Diplomacy and protocol as practiced by ignorant social misfits — first Hillary the Harebrained Harridan, and now the Obama couple, doing the unthinkable and then the humiliating. The nation is not well served. Where are the people from Foggy Bottom whose job it is to instruct our ruling yahoos in manners?

The lady justice is ill, and probably will step down soon. She will likely be replaced by a fellow named Koh, about whom you can read in a brief (but two-part) report. Part One, in which “transnational” law is discussed. Part Two, in which Koh’s refusal to obey a unanimous supreme court decision is mentioned, deals with the man’s political orientation. One GOP luminary has come to Koh’s defense, but without addressing the issues.

Getting to know the real Barack Obama. No huge surprises, but a cogent explanation for what is already known about a man who makes himself incredibly hard to know. This could be a jarring experience for the Obamaniacs who bought the Hope And Change shtick.

Killing the goose that used to lay golden eggs: New York does all it can to drive away the people who create the prosperity. Madness.

The president speaks, the internet fisks. Yes, “to fisk” is a verb, and it means “to give the lie to false and deceitful discourse; to debunk; to expose.” It is named after Robert Fisk, the journalist who has the distinction of being Osama bin Laden’s favorite reporter. Fisk is a notorious truth-twister and ideological freak. The fisking of the president linked here involves the exposure of numerous non-facts regarding the US auto industry — untruths found in a presidential speech.

Is there a danger that the USA might become more fascist? What is fascism, anyway? The debate is extended in this post, which may be enough for most folks. Those who want a comprehensive view must read this book, which drew smug, contemptuous reactions from its targets (naturally). The book in a nutshell: there’s a good reason why the Nazi party was called the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”

Ordinary humanity is the natural resource of the competent and imaginative; it is the material out of which those of quality construct their well-being. It is the foundation of the mansion, the work force that fetches and ploughs and reaps and stores up; it is the tool in the hands of the favored. — Yeah, riiiight. Ask any neo-Marxist, and then, after he’s lectured you, read all about how capitalism actually exploits the suffering masses.

From The Archive

The following heresy is from The Terrapin Gazette, Number 79, which appeared on 29 December, 2005. As a result of her tireless and brave work exposing the UN Food For Oil scam, Claudia Rosett has the distinction of being the favorite journalist of both The Terrapin Gazette and The Penguin Post. When she was uncovering the truth about the largest financial swindle in human history, she was ignored by the major media, and to this day has never been granted the respect or praise she deserves. Rosett’s career is a reminder that the major media are overwhelmingly dominated by a corrupt mindset, an ideological bigotry that desecrates the faith millions of people around the world misplace in their journalists.

Here It Is, All Summarized And Explained: The Story Of A Scoundrel

Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, is a liar, charlatan and criminal. He should be in prison.

Strong words? Not for those who know the facts. Here is an excellent overview of the crimes of this villain. It contains an account of Kofi’s recent outburst at a press conference. Do read it. You did not see this in your newspaper.

Though the truth has peeked past the media gatekeepers on occasion, a shroud of deliberate inattention has generally prevented the full story from reaching most of the public. People simply don’t know what a bad man Kofi is.

The information gap is neither trivial nor accidental. There are many influential people in the opinion-shaping business (education, publishing, news and broadcasting, non-governmental organizations such as think tanks and advocacy groups, political action committees, the entertainment industry) whose ideological commitment to the UN has led them to commit literal censorship. The truth about Kofi is an embarrassment to this arrogant elite, so the full story is ignored and efforts are made to prevent its diffusion.

The word is, “Don’t attack Kofi — it will hurt the sacred cause.” From the article cited above:

…the U.N. Secretariat, despite all the recent talk of reform, evidently remains a place of secrecy and privilege, run by high officials who don’t mind talking about their global goals and grand legacies, but find it highly irritating to be held to normal standards of good governance or subjected to anything resembling the workings of a free press.

How could this be? Why must the UN now be regarded as stubbornly corrupt? What is the origin of this ethical leprosy, and why has it been tolerated?

The answer is twofold.

First, the General Assembly of the UN tells the Secretary General what to do. Kofi does not work for the Security Council. His bosses, the members of the GA, are overwhelmingly “third world” nations.

Second, the truth is that…

Politics in the Third World has long been principally a synonym for plunder. The sole variation from this boring theme lay in finding new and innovative alibis under which to commit the intended looting.

Source

Kofi works for people who are even worse than he is, in other words.

The original purpose of the UN was simply to unite the democracies and their most powerful allies in an effort to solve problems peacefully — not all problems, but certainly those that could be solved by some bullying behavior short of war. F. D. Roosevelt was the first political leader to use the term “United Nations.” What he had in mind was nothing like the current organization:

…there was a certain built-in tension between Roosevelt’s earlier idea of an exclusive great-power club and the all-inclusive international body that eventually emerged. FDR had maintained a strong conviction that small nations not be allowed to complicate the great powers’ task of keeping the peace. But as the Second World War had drawn to a close, wild utopian proposals were coming out of America, as many called for “world government” or a “federation of democracies.” (Source: Dore Gold’s Tower of Babble, ISBN 1-4000-5475-3, page 27.)

The abomination that today festers in New York is a monument to greed and bureaucratic abuse. No wonder; most of its members are themselves just pirates.

Nothing can be done to reform the General Assembly of the UN. That does not change the fact that Kofi Annan is a criminal who should have a number for a name.