Archive for bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Open discussion on just about any topic
 

The free forums are now under new ownership, a full announcement will be made shortly

       bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Don't touch my Junk Drawer
tsiya

The Progressive Reactionarism of the Postmodern Left

The absurdity of the postmodern left is that it is a chimera crossbred of contradictions mixing together technocracy and environmentalism. Hunting through the trash for discarded food and triumphantly blogging about it on a 500 dollar device. Big government projects and making your own shoes. Stand up to the man and tell him to appoint more bureaucrats. Read Dawkins and then blog about visiting a Middle Eastern mosque. Reject materialism in the latest carefully branded 200 dollar shoes made from recycled rubber tires.  


If the old left at least had something resembling rational project, the postmodern left has its broken vestiges, dressed up in directionless rage, superstition, anti-materialism and primitivism. The end result of this progressive reactionarism isn't just ugly, it's unsustainable.

The contradictions between the left's big government ambitions and its destruction of everything that makes it work dooms the whole project to a meltdown. The Soviet Union was run by vicious thugs who understood that you needed a massive industrial and agricultural base to build the socialist future. But today's left is completely uninterested in such things. Like lunatic dot com pioneers, they don't bother with revenue streams or business models, just plans and proposals. Ideological compliance matters. Functionality isn't even a blip on the radar.

As hopelessly stupid as many of the Bolsheviks were, they understood that something had to come after seizing the property of the rich. The modern left just assumes that the property of rich is an infinite commodity that can be seized and will still always be there. Not enough money? Raise taxes. Still not enough money? Raise more taxes. And then get ready to move your own money to another tax shelter. Their anti-materialism is more like a hypocritical ignorance of their own material realities. Socialism for them is not a material act, but a spiritual one. To make it work, you must have faith in hope and change.

The Soviet Union in its time made Union Carbide and Exxon look like radical greens. It didn't just pollute, it celebrated the destruction of the natural world as the triumph of modern man. It tore down mountains with the same glee it tore down churches. It destroyed rivers and lakes just to show that it could. This violent vandalism sprang from its materialist roots. Primitive man might be satisfied with smelling the flowers, but Socialist man would stomp all over the flowers and go back and plant some even better steel flowers to show his superiority to the natural world.

But its idiot grandchildren have gone just as radically in the opposite direction to an environmentalism that makes industry impossible and individual prosperity hopeless-- and with them the economic base for their ideology. Embracing environmentalist dogma isn't just a knife to the throat of businesses and a bullet to the head of the consumer-- it's a slow prolonged death for the tax happy Great Society that was built at their expense.

It takes a mighty nation to support a cradle to grave welfare state and grants to analyze the racial subtext of Eskimo poetry. Or a bankrupt nation getting bailouts from the IMF in the hopes of being able to service its debt. And beyond that lie the spiritual values of starving children sorting garbage in slums so admired by moral leaders like Prince Chuck. The anti-materialism of the freegans taken to its inevitable outcome when the economy and then the system that made their dilettantism possible is destroyed.

By a perverse twist, anti-capitalism has become anti-materialism. The strange love child of Marx and Rousseau celebrates the wonders of African capitalism and bemoans brand labels. Structural analysis has given way to identification. A herd instinct for those who fancy themselves too smart for the common herd. The herd is not concerned with where it is going, but only that it is traveling with others of the same kind.

Marx had little use for the noble savage and primitivism for its own sake. His casual observation that  "Islamism proscribes the nation of the Infidels, constituting a state of permanent hostility between the Mussulman and the unbeliever" is today only to be found on the right and among a besieged handful of European leftists. The rest welcome in Islam and Sharia Law as the solution to all ills. In their  minds, the only way to fully purge the materialism and nationalism of the civilized world, is to fill it with the uncivilized.

The addled left has confused primitivism with anti-materialism, treating poverty as evidence of higher moral values. This attitude hung around the necks of upper class activists all along, but there is no longer any counter to it. Every college assigns critical texts on Orientalism, and yet every campus wallows in the fetishization of non-Western cultures. Gandhi, the former soldier turned independence activist, has become the plaster saint on the wall of Western pacifism, and the Koran has become the book of tolerance and feminism. Those so intolerant of the hypocrisies of their own culture, eagerly wallow in the hypocrisies of other cultures.


The progressives thought they were moving up, but the reactionaries think that down is up. That the way to a better future lies in making do with less and living a simpler life. These ideas are not rational, they are cultic. Their embrace of Islam, the most reactionary creed since the witch doctor and his bone knife, does not derive from a comparison of its relative merits, but from their political escapism. They are too lazy to be bothered to analyze ideas on their merits. Instead they choose the one furthest away from the rational and congratulate themselves on how well they refuse to be fooled by the reactionaries.

The postmodern left has a socialist bookshelf, but the readers are aspiring savages. Aspiring because they lack the aptitude for more than the occasional street protest and date rape. They have a highly developed nose for injustice, but no sense of guilt. They strive to atone for their consumerism with a conspicuous anti-materialism of fair trade and DIY projects. They want to overturn and sustain their privileges at the same time all at the expense of the working class. And while they cash in on cap and trade, it's the ordinary workers who are being capped and their jobs getting traded overseas.

Progressive reactionarism is the escalator of men and women who want to be seen moving forward, even as they slide further backward. Their greatest fear is that the rest of the herd will realize they don't know the difference. The more the progressives move their agenda forward, the more the society they infest moves backward. But most of them are not positioned where they can see that. Nor can they see the bigger picture.

They reduce all transactions to the victim-oppressor equation, unrealizing that to much of the country they have become the oppressors. That the out of work coal miner, the small businessman and the working family trying to make ends meet increasingly hates them and their institutions. That their self-consciously charming coffeehouses, home woodshopping and green advocacy look like the playthings of a dilettante elite about to be swept out of power by popular anger, as thoroughly as the Bourbon kings of France.

The massive unwieldy beasts of government have become the Versailles of a hopelessly out of touch liberal elite, that slums around with books about how hard it is to get by on a limited income, but have no comprehension how much the people who are getting by resent the massive infrastructure of their bureaucratic palaces. The progressive reactionaries have lost sight of the moment when they crossed the terminator from activists to tyrants. That self-delusion is a weakness the Communists did not suffer from. The Progressive-Reactionaries are vain enough to dress up as democrats and pretend that their rule is consensual. Any opposition is met with shrieks of racism. A word that no longer has any meaning except as code for counter-revolutionary.

Of all the tyrannies of history, the Progressive-Reactionaries are by far the dumbest. The only thing they know how to do is bribe their way to stay in power. But even the old divide and conquer politics of apportioning the spoils of government to your supporters only works for as long as you have what to give them. When the economy turns bad enough and there's nothing to hand out anymore, then there's nothing standing between you and the counter-revolution except the hoarse cry of racism.

Jobs? Ask the Commies about that one. They at least knew what jobs are. That's something Richard Blumenthal couldn't do during his senate debate. It's something Obama hasn't been able to grasp with all his shovel ready projects and promises of creating a billion zillion jobs a week. His latest economic plan to create jobs is by legalizing illegal aliens. At this point it's painfully obvious that never having held a job or done a job, he doesn't actually understand what they are. And he doesn't care to find out.

'Jobs' like 'Racism' has become one of those words that goes well in any sentence. The left now uses it like explorers who have landed on a native island, aware that the natives worship some god called 'Jobs' and hope that by randomly pointing to things, taking them and then shaking them upside down, the natives will find those 'Jobs' they keep looking for and leave them in peace.

Conservatives accuse liberals of reading Marx and Lenin. But it's much worse than that. They're reading Thomas Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree, with some Alinsky and Arabian Nights on the side. They're not so much socialists, as they are idiots who think that the economy is a function of their genius and all foreign policy problems can be settled with a beer summit and a heartfelt apology. It's not just that they're ruining America-- it's that they're frequently too stupid to even know they're doing it.


They're too stupid to even understand that their vision of a technocratic environmentally sustainable democracy in which everyone makes do with less and likes it that way makes as much sense as teaching your dog to do tricks by setting yourself on fire. Or that working toward a united world by empowering a bunch of people who kill each other over minor points of religious doctrine and ethnicity is like torching yourself, the dog and the nearby fire station. Or that none of this can even pay for itself because every time they pass a law, jobs fly out the window like startled birds. And the only thing they ever do anymore is pass laws, and then more laws on top of that.

You can't get there from here. That's the saddest thing about the progressive-reactionaries. The old leftists could combine idealism and materialism in a brutal package of a mechanical society. But there is hardly any materialism in the dogma of the new left, except when it comes to their own salaries. They have nothing resembling a plan for a workable society. Not even a bad plan. Instead the envision that a better society will somehow emerge from the piles of mouldering bureaucracy and angry mobs of multicultural refugees. The 'somehow' is left up to someone else to work out.

Like Wily E. Coyote teetering in mid-air, the postmodern left still fancifully imagines that it is going forward. But the only place it's going is down. And as of now, they're taking everyone else with them.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
bieramar

---
Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
Gender: Male
Location: United States

About Me:

My name is Daniel Greenfield. I'm a blogger and columnist born in Israel and currently living in New York City.

I am a contributing editor at Family Security Matters. My columns regularly appear at Family Security Matters, IsraeleNews and daily at the Canada Free Press, as well as on occasion at Act for America and at Front Page Magazine.

My op eds have also appeared in the Jewish Press.

I have been named one of the Jewish Press' Most Worthwhile Blogs in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

My writing has been cited by Melanie Philips, Daniel Pipes, Judith Klinghoffer and Michelle Malkin, among others.
---
Source: http://www.blogger.com/profile/13575285186581875356
===

Greenfield is arguably the most brilliant writer of the Jewish/American neoconservatives.  His blogs combine wit, plainspeak and perspicuousity - the essential foundations of a written op-ed (as opposed to a discussion or debate).

Unfortunately his writings betray in himself the flaws of human nature he so accurately describes in generalizing about others - as evidenced in the instant blog, above.  

And he exhibits the fatal flaw which so many ideologues cling to - not understanding that "left" is a direction from each observer, changing with each generation of observers, not an expression of a concept.
tsiya

My observation and experience tells me that he is absolutely correct, just as my observation and experience tells me that you are in no way an unbiased critic. Very Happy

Chuck you've gotta do better than thinly veiled ad hominem, unless it is all you have left. Very Happy
coebul

bieramar wrote:
And he exhibits the fatal flaw which so many ideologues cling to - not understanding that "left" is a direction from each observer, changing with each generation of observers, not an expression of a concept.
Oh Bull shit.  The political left and right can and is easily definable and represented on a line similar to a number line.  

Far left ---- Left ---- Middle ---- Right ---- Far Right
tsiya

I KNOW WHAT 'IS' IS TOO! Very Happy
coebul

where one stands on that line is subjective but the line exists.  I have some far right opinions as well as some middle of the road opinions inter spaced with some liberal opinions.  

But I call my self middle of the road leaning to the right.
puc reducks

Where one stands on that line is subjective, but the line exists.  I have some far left opinions as well as some middle of the road opinions interspersed with some conservative opinions.

But I call myself middle of the road, leaning to the left.


(Thank you, Coe, for the framework!)
tsiya

puc reducks wrote:
Where one stands on that line is subjective, but the line exists.  I have some far left opinions as well as some middle of the road opinions interspersed with some conservative opinions.

But I call myself middle of the road, leaning to the left.


(Thank you, Coe, for the framework!)


You must be a McCain supporter!
bieramar

puc reducks wrote:
Where one stands on that line is subjective, but the line exists.  I have some far left opinions as well as some middle of the road opinions interspersed with some conservative opinions.

But I call myself middle of the road, leaning to the left.


(Thank you, Coe, for the framework!)


And that framework is precisely the point, and the fatal flaw of those - like Greenfield (and seemingly tsiya) - who collectively dehumanize and collectively refer to people as "left" or "leftists."

You both know, accept and acknowledge that on individual issues you hold opinions which you judge as being "left" positions along the line of that particular issue.  

So are either or both of you part of "the postmodern left" that Greenfield describes?

Coebul and I just had this exercise recently. What is the "left" position on immigration reform?  Are McCain and Bush part of "the postmodern left."  Nope, no more than you two are.

Why not?  Because there is no such thing.  

There are individuals who hold one or more of the positions which Greenfield so accurately describes -- but who also hold opinions on other issues which are middle of the road/centrists,  or conservative.

The fatal flaw is to think, believe, accuse or condemn a person who holds one "left" view on one issue as therefore holding "left" views on every other issue, and being part of some imaginary group or movement of "the postmodern left" - robots or sheep or any other of the dehumanizing terms to collectively group and prejudge others.  

And the same fatal flaw is to prejudge a person who holds a particular "religious right" view as being part of a group or movement; or that all Tea Partiers think the same on every issue.
coebul

It is the terms one uses that are at fault not the line.  

Postmodern left?  Define it.  People use these terms as a crutch rather then defining their position.  

I am conservative but understand Abortion is a reality.  Rather then outlaw it I seek to limit it.  Would I seek to stop it?  No! What limits?  Let's discuss it.   What am I?  Left Middle or Right?

Those on the left would call me a tyrant, those on the right would call me a rino.  

What am I really?  Postmodern.....  Neocon.......  Rino......  

They are terms that people make up.
puc reducks

Would just like to weigh in here...

(having HUGE deja-vu right now!!!)

to say I'm more of a moderate/centrist, except I swing violently left on some issues, esp. abortion.

I don't care what the "tags" are.  Although some good stuff has come from blogs, most bloggers twist and otherwise desactigy the language to suit whatever.

I am no more "postmodernist" anything than I am a "postmodern leftist."

Time to scrap the "postmoden" soubriquet anyway.  It no longer is precise in its descriptive or usage.
puc reducks

tsiya wrote:
puc reducks wrote:
Where one stands on that line is subjective, but the line exists.  I have some far left opinions as well as some middle of the road opinions interspersed with some conservative opinions.

But I call myself middle of the road, leaning to the left.


(Thank you, Coe, for the framework!)


You must be a McCain supporter!


Son of a gun, I was!

Back when I lived in AZ and he was a senator.  Eventually wore off, though. Was never a McCainite OUT of AZ.
tsiya

There are certain concrete principles defining the center, they don't blow around when the wind changes.

Chuck argues that everything is relative, but it's only a tactic, he is too intelligent to believe it. Very Happy

Playing the relative card can confuse the debate nicely, if you're playing with the easily confused!
bieramar

My main fundamental argument isn't that everything is relative¹ - my main argument is what coebul and puc reducks have both exemplified on this thread.

Each point of each and every topic, subject and political belief can be defined and placed from far "left" to far "right" along a line.²  I don't know anyone who doesn't agree to that principle.

But if you chart a list of 20 topics from L to R, and each of us regularly posting here would identify our point on each of the 20 lines, we would have a scattering of dots.  None of us (based upon our posted opinions through the years) would place all our dots at the far left, or far right, of all 20 topic lines.  That is the reality of the great majority of humans.

The description "left" or "right" or "postmodern left" or "christian right" or "social conservative" or "neoconservative" or any of the rest CAN be properly applied to each and every one of the different ideas, topics, and political beliefs.

BUT such pejorative descriptions do not fit individuals, except for the very small percentages of persons who are fanatics and/or psychologically impaired.  

IF the op-ed which led off this thread had concentrated on the concepts and ideas (across the lines from left to right) which are dangerous to the future of the U.S., it would have been a great beginning to discuss/debate each one on its merits, as the author has excellent insights.

However, he wrote a polemic attack of generalizations, reinforcing the false idea that any person who believes/thinks one "left" idea on one concept of government or politics or life is part of a cohesive "leftist" group of mindless clones.

¹Actually I think everything IS relative - the principle truth underlying my Taoist-based philosophy and Buddhist beliefs.

²The classic method of defining the differing definitions of belief within one topic/concept is to use a stanine scale from L to R, i.e. L1, L2, L3, CL, C, CR, R3, R2, R1.

To change a person's opinion, you first figure out where (s)he is on the scale, e.g. "tax the rich."  

Then it is relatively easy to move a person one step along the scale with logic and facts; harder to move someone two steps; and almost impossible to move them three positions at one time.
puc reducks

Absolutely right on, Bier.  In every aspect.

Me:  Lazy and trying to get away with simplifying on a rainy Monday afternoon.

Sure as heck don't know what Coe's or Tsyia's excuses are!   Wink

Edited to say:  I hope I don't fall into that "psychologically impaired" category.  I'd really have to argue that one!
coebul

puc reducks wrote:
Would just like to weigh in here...

(having HUGE deja-vu right now!!!)

to say I'm more of a moderate/centrist, except I swing violently left on some issues, esp. abortion.
And as long as you seek no middle ground you inadvertently empower those on the right to equally avoid a solution.   The radical Islamic Jihadists are guilty of the exact same thing.  



puc reducks wrote:
Time to scrap the "postmoden" soubriquet anyway.  It no longer is precise in its descriptive or usage.
Never was.  It was a term "they" used to hide behind.
tsiya

Shakedown Socialism: Oleg Atbashian at Liberty on the Rocks in Colorado

http://youtu.be/xd3waSb9g7g

       bumrejects.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Don't touch my Junk Drawer
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum