Wednesday, December 05, 2012
Pepe's Faustian pact
L'Arroseur Arrosé: The people whose wallets will be drained in the new war on “the rich” are high-earning, but hardly plutocratic professionals like engineers, doctors, lawyers, small business owners and the like. Once seen as the bastion of the middle class, and exemplars of upward mobility, these people are emerging as the modern day “kulaks,” the affluent peasants ruthlessly targeted by Stalin in the early 1930s.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
It begins with the Kulak, it ends with the Gulag.
Obama is like Stalin engineering Holodomor, here's a discerning analogy. But since you're having an insightful moment, might as well go full monty and say that what he is doing amounts to no less than a new Holocaust on the Middle Class. Would that be ok or is it too right-wing and you prefer Killing fields imagery ? I also like the soundbite "Red Terror on Main Street". It's got a sexy ominous ring to it that nicely amalgamates horrible historical events with mundane affairs like we like to do here.
Experience and experiment may run their hundred year course, but that doesn't mean Charly learns. But then, how can he? Charly don't do homework.
May you live long enough to enjoy the full irony of the history you will not learn from.
Charly, Charly -- reading is essential, ya know? The Kulak comparison was not made by me, but rather by some guy writing for Forbes magazine -- not your typical rwn outfit. Besides, this guy Kotkin went to Berkeley, so he may be a bossom buddy of yours, for all I know.
At any rate, the comparison is quite valid, and it does not involve the Holodomor, the Holocaust, or Pol Pot's Killing fields. Rather, it involves class warfare, a typically Lefty concept, popularized inter alia by Uncle Joe during his dekulakization campaign of the early 1930s, oh so heartily encouraged and celebrated by la Gauche bien pensante of the time (think Walter Durannty and the New York Times, for instance), and now reprised (though of course not with the same coarseness as that of the Cheka -- we are much more sophisticated now, aren't we, Charlie?) on both sides of the Pond.
It's just a case of plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Once the Left unleashed the genie in 1789 (when it all started, basically), it's been all modeled on the same basic class envy paradigm of Robespierre & Co.
Now I get it - by invoking Stalin your Berkeley buddy writing for Mother Forbes isn't trying to conjure up thoughts of death camps, purges and the like. He is invoking the comparatively gentler side of the Dear Father: thinking theory he says Stalin but actually means Engels.
And when the moveon types toss around mentions of Hitler when referring to Bush, you are prompt to point out that they might just be relating to an interest Dubbyah could have taken in the study of eugenics.
Actually, Charly, eugenics was pushed in the US by your old "progressive" buddy, Margaret Sanger,
As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit.
Pinko Versailles don't like having too many stinking peasants around.
He doesn't have to go back to 1910's to see that beautiful Eugenic dalliance between the Progressive and the Versaillean Racialist. It has been ever a feature, and never a bug, of the American Left; whose fine and sanguinary thinkery on genetics and the worth of a human life runs directly from Sanger to Singer.
Oh, but it would have taken Homework to study the past. That's right, Charly don't do Homework.
Sanger of access to birth control fame ? She was quite an admirable woman and probably influenced by the ideas of her days. Incidentally, wasn't that dangerous progressive Churchill also a proponent ? But you are probably well aware of it and carefully cherry picking your data (cardinal sin #1 for a scientist as you might have heard).
Charly, Charly, as I said: reading is essential. (An expression I learned from Mr Rot, incidentally.) If you go back to what I said, here it is:
Eugenics was pushed in the US by your old "progressive" buddy, Margaret Sanger.
I didn't "cherry pick" the data, I pointed out who was the most notorious proponent in of eugenics in the United States. (As opposed to the other random guys you bring up, one from Germany, and one from England.) Alles klar now, Herr Kommissar?
Of course "the ideas of her day" have run deep through the American Left right up through this very day. Prof. Singer is as much a Hero of Planet Pepe, in the year 2012, as all those Brave New Worlders cascading back to that "admirable woman", Margaret Sanger.
Now, that Charly would find that apostle of tyranny, and of the reduction of mankind into cattle processed for the "collective good", to be "admirable" is as shocking as that Charly thinks those peasants do rather stink.
Of course Charly admires her: she's a Progressive Hero of Planet Pepe.
The Flag of Pepea stands ever over the field of The Red and The Brown and The Black.
The Tricolor of the Socialisms
That all you got - allegations of a speech with unspecified contents by some bedroom-sniffing wacko blog? That new cherry you're picking isn't edible.
Tecumseh, do you think Charly is truly this stupid.....or does he write when so immersed in drink or drugs as to make any native intelligence irrelevant?
Charly, when you sober up try connecting whatever it is you were trying to say with the life and thought of Margaret Sanger. You might, for example, do your homework and actually study what she wrote, and said, for yourself.
But, ah, Homework. That would be work. Not your bag.
Besides, what good could come from knowing what is this lady you embrace? You know that she embraced abortion, and that's enough to make her an admirably kewl kat in your eyes. If you learn too much about her, you run the risk of knowing too much about yourself.
That would not be desirable, bien sur.
Here's yet another bitter cherry to be picked, specially for Charly.
“I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” (Sanger 366)
The above quote is taken from the autobiography of Margaret Sanger, the sometimes revered mother of American abortion. She is also the founder of Planned Parenthood.
OK, Charly, I know you proud yourself in how "reality-based" you are (all pinkos do). So then, pray thee, where exactly is that quote factually wrong, in your view?
Just in case you need some help with your homework, here is a youtube video with the full quote, read out loud for people who can't be bothered to read.
Save for a handful of fundamentalist states, the entire planet has some tolerance for abortion. Who then could possibly think that "embracing" some tolerance for abortion would make a person admirable? Surely it takes more than agreeing with the overwhelming majority. But such are AA's embryonic psychological analyses: favors baby-killing -> worshiped by pepe ("as by all pinkos" cleverly taunts Tecs in unisson before observing "he so dumb").
Now if you "did your homework", you would have read that Sanger pioneered the legalization of birth control, something that even someone as retrograde on social issues as you ought to find worthy of praise. She also opened a woman's clinic, was persecuted by obscurantists for distributing information on contraception. In short she devoted herself to societal progress: what is there to not admire here ?
She was also proponent of eugenics, as was Churchill, Linus Pauling and many others, and she spoke at a few KKK rallies ? What does that imply ? What did she say ? You don't know. Show me she was a member of he Klan or drop it: so far you got nothing.
"Save for a handful of fundamentalist states, the entire planet has some tolerance for abortion"
With the word "some" then everything in the Universe, including Gaia herself, would have "some tolerance". There are no States which do not have "some tolerance".
Pepean Logick: Charly loves her so.
"Who then could possibly think that "embracing" some tolerance for abortion would make a person admirable"
Ah, Pepe. So, you are stupid? Or just an intellectual fraud? Margaret Sanger was not someone who had "some tolerance" for abortion. She was an enthusiastic proponent of abortion as an instrument of social engineering. She sought a world with an industrial scale capacity for killing its unborn, and some born as well, to perfect the Socialist State.
And you replace that with "some tolerance"????? You might as well come out with "Stalin had some tolerance for death panels" when the holomodor or purges or death camps are brought up...oh, wait, what am I saying? This is all old hat to one so practiced as you.
"Surely it takes more than agreeing with the overwhelming majority. "
Surely it should. Only an idiot, or a fraud, would assert that truth, or deciding what should be admired, are to be decided for you by the simple expediency of following the Authority of the Crowd. It is an expediency you have often made use of here on FCP. Strangely enough.
You sound like the vandal who breaks into a house, with a knife, and is met with an owner with a gun, and thus protests his innocence of intent: "Surely you don't think I'd be so stupid as to try to break into a house with only a knife, do you?".
"But such are AA's embryonic psychological analyses: favors baby-killing -> worshiped by pepe ("as by all pinkos" cleverly taunts Tecs in unisson before observing "he so dumb")."
What psychological analysis? Your admiration for Sanger, and the specification of abortion for that admiration, were direct statements of yours.
Please do reread that passage of yours, above, and feel free to dig as deep as you may for any glimmer of intelligence.
Good luck.
"Now if you "did your homework", you would have read that Sanger pioneered the legalization of birth control. something that even someone as retrograde on social issues as you ought to find worthy of praise. She also opened a woman's clinic, was persecuted by obscurantists for distributing information on contraception. In short she devoted herself to societal progress: what is there to not admire here "
Pauvre Charly, it must be tough running through the blogosphere in desperate search for someone else's work to crib in lieu of picking up her bloody writings and studying for yourself. Almost as tough as you thinking through things for yourself rather than bleat the dogma bleu.
Margaret Sanger was one of the pioneers of birth control, yup. Among the methods she promulgated, beyond chemical or mechanical means of prevention of birth, were sterilization of women [mostly] and men [some] and abortion. She was a driving force behind Government programs, under FDR, to classify "defectives" according to IQ tests, psychological instability, race, and other "undesirable social characteristics", and to force the incarceration or sterilization of such in order to prevent their procreating. To her "birth control" was not a means to address, for example, a claimed Malthusian overshoot of the human population beyond carrying capacity, but a means of cleansing society of the unwanted and undesirable, of shaping the biology of mankind to the specifications to her vision of the Radiant Future. The only distinction between her notions of "birth control" and those practiced by the National Socialists was that she did not lump in Jews in that list of undesirables [she did lump in gypsies].
Of course that is "societal progress" to you. Of course you would consider those who see this as barbarism to be "retrograde". But then, but for the happenstance of Hitler's hatred for Jews he would be an examplar of that societal progress which so elicits your admiration.
"She was also proponent of eugenics, as was Churchill, Linus Pauling and many others."
Yes, Churchill, on the right, and Pauling, on the left, were proponents of eugenics. Sanger was much more than just a proponent, she was one its very leading lights. In the English speaking world, its leading light for a number of years. Don't be shy about letting the glory of your admirable woman shine forth.
"and she spoke at a few KKK rallies ? What does that imply ? "
Charly, Charly, what do you think it implies? What sort of folks spoke at KKK rallies in the 1910's, 1920's,30's? Well, yeah, tons of leaders of the Democrat Party, ok, granted, but what sort of people in terms of what lay at the core of their belief? Racists, pure and anadulterated white supremacist racists. Which you know full well. Had, say, Bill Buckley made some speeches at KKK rallies you could have gathered your wits and put two and two together [to make four, not five]. But now you are apologizing for a leftist thug of some renown, and so you are busy adding up two plus two to get five.
"What did she say ? You don't know."
It is you, Charly, who don't know. More than that, you don't want to know. Since I was not a leading Democrat of that era, nor a good Progressive, I wasn't at those meetings to hear directly. And I suppose the reports from those meetings you would dismiss simply because, bien sur, you can.
"What did she say ? You don't know."
Charly, it is you who don't know. It is you who won't read her books/writings for yourself to see what she thought about blacks, and "inferior races" in general. If you did you would see that if she limited herself to quotes from her writings she would already be a hit on the KKK circuit.
Now I admit I was not there in person to see her schtick. Even if I'd been around then, I simply would not have been Progressive enough to join that merry band of leading Democrats and fine social activists. I'm retrograde that way. But Margaret Sanger would never have spoken at a KKK rally, and certainly not multiple times, unless she was one pure grade A racialist white supremacist asshole.
Remarkable that you find that so admirable and indicative of societal progress. But then, not really.
"Show me she was a member of he Klan or drop it: so far you got nothing."
Why should I think of showing you she was a member of the Klan? It is certainly possible that she spoke to the Klan without being an official member of that upstanding and progressive Democrat organization. Heck, she even spoke to Republicans. That required membership in the Republican Party?????
Your comment, of course, is incredibly stupid. Unless, of course, it was a deliberate, and pathetic, attempt to substitute a falsehood ["the claim is that she is a member of the KKK"] for the truth ["the claim is that she spoke a number of times at KKK rallies"]. So, once again, Charly's mind comes a cropper as it seeks to navigate through the Scylla of Imbecility and the Charbydis of Lies.
In the end, Charly, you are who you chose to be. If that sticks in your craw, in those dark moments before dawn, and you choose to lie about what you have chosen to be, that's your problem.
But what is the point in trying to lie to us?
Good question, AA, good question. Then again, much of that ideology so beloved by Charly -- as propounded by such past luminaries as Margaret Sanger -- is based on a pack of falsehoods, shibboleths, urban legends, and plain old, unadulterated lies.
But, once you get caught up in that web of lies, it's pretty much impossible to escape. A few did--like, admirably, Whittaker Chambers. But that's one of the few exceptions that proves the rule. It takes intellectual courage, honesty with oneself, and a very sharp mind to extricate oneself from that cloaca.
So, AA, don't berate Charly too much. He just can't escape the intellectual trap into which he finds himself. Then again, that's pretty much axiomatic.
>> What sort of folks spoke at KKK rallies in the 1910's, 1920's,30's? Well, yeah, tons of leaders of the Democrat Party, ok, granted, but what sort of people in terms of what lay at the core of their belief? Racists, pure and anadulterated white supremacist racists.
I know what you are saying but back it up. You may well be right but I don't see that as being obvious. Don't the teabaggers give speeches at the naacp ?
>>Heck, she even spoke to Republicans
Well if that doesn't prove she was a republican. What sort of people spoke at republican rallies in the 1910s, 20s, 30s... ?
"Some" tolerance refers to the specifics: no serious supporters extend their tolerance up to, say, the day before delivery. The cutoff date varies from one place to the next.
Incidentally, here's a map of worldwide abortion laws that backs the notion that just about every nation in the developed world allows it with no reservation, and, as an aside, that the tea baggers are again in bed with their own worst enemies.
Post a Comment