← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petr
Thread ID: 19318 | Posts: 29 | Started: 2005-07-28
2005-07-28 18:44 | User Profile
Kudos for folks at "Little Geneva" for pointing this out:
[url]http://www.littlegeneva.com/[/url]
[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Arial]"Take Bob Wallace, a longtime contributor to the Lew Rockwell snoozefest. He recently wrote, at Strike the Root:[/FONT] [/COLOR]
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Red][SIZE=3][B]"Most ââ¬Ëbigotryââ¬â¢ is the act of noticing the truth. Blacks are genetically intellectually inferior, always have been, always will be. Except for music and sports, they will always be on the bottom. Theyââ¬â¢ve never had a culture worthy of the name, never will. Asians have an ages-old group mentality that I doubt can be eradicated. They have no creativity, and I doubt anything can be done about that, either. There never was a Muslim Golden Age. Most of it consisted of stealing from Christians and Jews. Islam was, and always will be, an intellectually and morally dead obscenity. It is the worst thing that has happened to the world. Jews will always be ostracized because of their attempts to destroy every culture that admits them. Whites will always be on top, Asians right underneath them, Mexicans far below, and blacks right at the bottom. Nearly everything in the world has been created by Western Christian civilization, especially in America since 1776."[/B][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]
[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Arial]His words are somewhat arrogant and not entirely accurate, but largely true. Therefore, it is not surprising that Bob has been booted from LewRockwell.com. You now have to go to the Wayback Machine to read his old articles, including "The Tribe and the Outsider":[/FONT][/COLOR]
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20040325004332/http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace176.html[/url]
Here is Wallace's article archive, now erased from LewRockwell.Com:
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20040405063428/www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace-arch.html[/url]
Here are Wallace's racial comments in their original context:
[url]http://www.strike-the-root.com/cgi-local/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=;action=usersrecentposts;username=Bob_Wallace[/url]
Petr
2005-07-28 18:55 | User Profile
Bob didn't say anything worth being fired over.
It's a shame how intolerate people are today. Those who scream "tolerance" and "diversity" are the least tolerant. Those who claim to be libertarian, are sometimes the least libertarian.
Yet the obscenity laced writers will continue. The profane and vulgar will continue to offend that which is decent and moral. They won't lose their jobs.
2005-07-28 19:11 | User Profile
I always look forward to reading Bob Wallace's columns on Strike the Root. Been doing it for awhile.
2005-07-28 20:01 | User Profile
Truth can sometimes be arrogant.
2005-07-28 21:20 | User Profile
I've had this idea to keep track of everyone fired, jailed, fined, prosecuted, etc. for simply making racialist comments, writing for racialist websites or journals, etc., but I fear it would be too depressing.
2005-07-28 21:34 | User Profile
Totally unrelated....but here's a Wallace column from his blog.
[QUOTE] [url]http://tonova.typepad.com/thesuddencurve/[/url]
Sunday, July 24, 2005 Hollywood Squares I grew up on Hollywood Squares back in the '70s. I just loved it.
Here are some quotes from I found, when game show's responses were spontaneous and not scripted like they are now.
[I]Peter Marshall: Paul, can you get an elephant drunk? Paul Lynde: Yes, but he still won't go up to your apartment.
Peter Marshall: According to Cosmo, if you meet a stranger at a party and you think he's really attractive, is it okay to come out directly and ask him if he's married? Rose Marie: No, wait until morning.
Peter Marshall: Which of your five senses tends to diminish as you get older? Charley Weaver: My sense of decency.
Peter Marshall: In Hawaiian, does it take more than three words to say "I love you"? Vincent Price: No, you can say it with a pineapple and a twenty.
Peter Marshall: Prometheus was tied to the top of a mountain by the gods because he had given something to man. What did he give us? Paul Lynde: I don't know what you got, but I got a sports shirt.
Peter Marshall: What are "Do It," "I Can Help" and "Can't Get Enough"? George Gobel: I don't know but it's coming from the next apartment.
Peter Marshall: What are "dual purpose" cattle good for that other Cattle aren't? Paul Lynde: They give milk and cookies...but I don't recommend the cookies!
Peter Marshall: If you find someone lying unconscious in the street, should you do anything? George Gobel: I'd probably crawl around him, I guess.
Peter Marshall: Paul, why do Hell's Angels wear leather? Paul Lynde: Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
Peter Marshall: Charley, you've just decided to grow strawberries. Are you going to get any during your first year? Charley Weaver: Of course not, Peter. I'm too busy growing strawberries!
Peter Marshall: In bowling, what's a perfect score? Rose Marie: Ralph, the pin boy.
Peter Marshall: Eddie, according to the Institute of Motivational Research, a wife should be beware if another woman takes an interest in a certain item of her husband's clothing. What item? Ed Asner: Well, shorts immediately springs to my mind...
Peter Marshall: It is considered in bad taste to discuss two subjects at nudist camps. One is politics. What is the other? Paul Lynde: Tape measures.
Peter Marshall: True or false...a pea can last as long as 5,000 years. George Gobel: Boy it sure seems that way sometimes...
Peter Marshall: Is there a weight limit for bags on airline flights in this country? Charley Weaver: If she can fit under the seat, she can fly.
Peter Marshall: During a tornado, are you safer in the bedroom or in the closet? Rose Marie: Unfortunately, Peter, I'm always safe in the bedroom.
Peter Marshall: Can boys join the camp fire girls? Marty Allen: Only after lights out.
Peter Marshall: When you pat a dog on its head he will usually wag his tail. What will a goose do? Paul Lynde: Make him bark.
Peter Marshall: True or false, George...experts say there are only seven or eight things in the world dumber than an ant. George Gobel: Yes, and I think I voted for six of 'em.
Peter Marshall: If you were pregnant for two years, what would you give birth to? Paul Lynde: Whatever it is, it would never be afraid of the dark.
Peter Marshall: According to Ann Landers, is there anything wrong with getting into the habit of kissing a lot of people? Charley Weaver: It got me out of the army!
Peter Marshall: While visiting China, your tour guide starts shouting "Poo! Poo! Poo!" What does that mean? George Gobel: Cattle crossing.
Peter Marshall: It is the most abused and neglected part of your body; what is it? Paul Lynde: Mine may be abused but it certainly isn't neglected!
Peter Marshall: Charley, what do you call a pig that weighs more than 150 pounds? Charley Weaver: A divorcee.
Peter Marshall: According to Movie Life magazine, Ann-Margret would like to start having babies soon, but her husband wants her to wait a while. Why? Paul Lynde: He's out of town.
Peter Marshall: Dennis Weaver, Debbie Reynolds, and Shelley Winters star in the movie "What's The Matter With Helen?" Who plays Helen? Charley Weaver: Dennis Weaver - that's why they asked the question.
Peter Marshall: Who stays pregnant for a longer period of time, your wife or your elephant? Paul Lynde: Who told you about my elephant?
Peter Marshall: When a couple have a baby, who is responsible for its sex? Charley Weaver: I'll lend him the car. The rest is up to him.
Peter Marshall: Jackie Gleason recently revealed that he firmly believes in them and has actually seen them on at least two occasions. What are they? Charley Weaver: His feet.
Peter Marshall: If you're going to make a parachute jump, you should be at least how high? Charley Weaver: Three days of steady drinking should do it.
Peter Marshall: Do female frogs croak? Paul Lynde: If you hold their little heads under water.
Peter Marshall: You've been having trouble going to sleep. Are you probably a man or a woman? Don Knotts: That's what's been keeping me awake!
Peter Marshall: In a very famous movie who said, "God, what a dump?" Paul Lynde: Dumbo. [/I]
Posted by [B]Bob Wallace[/B], who remembers Lynde answering the question, "How many balls are on a pool table?" with "It depends on how many guys are in the room."[/QUOTE]
2005-08-02 20:08 | User Profile
LewRockwitz's deleted archive had about twice as much columns as Strike The Root, so if you want to save them do it before Rockwitz has them deleted from the archive as well.
2005-08-03 00:18 | User Profile
"...Nearly everything in the world has been created by Western Christian civilization, especially in America since 1776." -Bob Wallace
Bravo. Well stated.
2005-08-03 02:25 | User Profile
Lew's apparently got this dopey idea of a libertarian alliance with the Left that I suspect is the culprit in this. It was tried and quickly abandoned by Murray Rothbard during the Vietnam era. It was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now. Lew's written some garbled, incoherent defense of the Kelo eminent domain decision up today. Sad and pathetic.
2005-08-03 21:32 | User Profile
Rockwell, other than his obvious malfeasance shown here, certainly has a double-standard regarding columns/columists, that is, if they shell out a few dineros to Lew. I wonder if Taki's writings all over the web are monitored by the crack team at LRC? Certainly in his many mercurial, booze-laden rants (Don't get my wrong, I love Taki's devil-may-care attitude & wit, I'm just being honest), he's said essentially what Wallace just did, if not more vociferously.
Liberty must not include the - quite frankly - obvious truisms uttered by Wallace, at least not to those *brave* libertarians at von Mises. There's dogs pissing on the base of their ivory tower and they're oblivious to it. Pathetic...
2005-08-03 21:54 | User Profile
Taki is a "name". Even if complaints flood the LRC email server re Taki's 'racist bile', Lew will stand bravely by his fame. Wallace, on the other hand, is a nobody, filling space at LRC. Nobodies don't get the benefit of the doubt....even when their offending comments appear in no column at all, but a mere message board on somebody else's server.
And Lew carefully avoids these things to begin with by only publishing Taki's, and Sobran's, least-inflammatory columns.
2005-08-03 22:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Taki is a "name". Even if complaints flood the LRC email server re Taki's 'racist bile', Lew will stand bravely by his fame. Wallace, on the other hand, is a nobody, filling space at LRC. Nobodies don't get the benefit of the doubt....even when their offending comments appear in no column at all, but a mere message board on somebody else's server.
And Lew carefully avoids these things to begin with by only publishing Taki's, and Sobran's, least-inflammatory columns.[/QUOTE] Your points are accurate and well taken. Still, the fact that the poor Greek boy is the daddy warbucks of the mildly racialist/non-establishment right, including LRC, I think has a little more to do with it.
Btw, ragno, I saw your name listed amongest the writers at M.R. I tried the search function there for you a while back, but came up with zilch. Do you have much written there? I'd pay to see your discourse with, say, a Kalb, Thrasymachus or three. Knowing how easy some of these guys get testy on certain subjects, it'd be a hoot to watch.
2005-08-03 22:51 | User Profile
I really just started there a week or two back and so far have restricted myself to the "comments" section. A good site, albeit awfully dry and genteel, but then it is run by an Englishman.
2005-08-03 23:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]I really just started there a week or two back and so far have restricted myself to the "comments" section. A good site, albeit awfully dry and genteel, but then it is run by an Englishman.[/QUOTE] Gotcha. I'll keep my eyes peeled. I'd stumbled upon the site from a S. Sailer google search and found him whining this there:
[QUOTE]I am totally against Holocaust Denial. It's bogus. The facts have been documented ad infinitum. More of this and I'll have to pull my link to your website.[/QUOTE] To which he recieved the admirable:
[QUOTE] I hope you will retain the link. But I will not limit free expression on this blog.[/QUOTE] Gotta like that.
[url="http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/497/"]http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/497/[/url]
2005-08-04 03:57 | User Profile
Yeah, Wintermute dragooned me into trying it out and while there many things to like about it...primarily that everyone is on their best behavior, as if at a social tea...there is a sort of stultifying [I]alright, people, Sailer's linking to us, we are going places here, so PLEASE let's not blow it with a lot of Jew-talk![/I] sort of anxiety going on, too.
Sorry, folks, but we're just gona keep learning this and learning this until it finally sinks in: you can't have an honest [I]and [/I] dignified right-wing forum if you're going to define "dignity" as [I]being above such crudities as speaking intemperately of the Jews[/I] when the Jews are, in fact, bound up inextricably in so many of the nation's, and the larger Western world's, various crises.
A strong European (primarily the UJ and Australia) tilt to much of the discussion, too; which is interesting, but limits my ability to credibly contribute. I mostly pop up here and there to do my Cassandra act ("now fortified with Veiled Anti-Semitism!"): hinting at the Jew, alluding to the Jew, whistling "[I]Hava Negila[/I]" knowingly...yet never saying "Jew" exactly. We'll see how it goes.
2005-08-04 20:49 | User Profile
Well, the JQ is -- for reasons you understand -- the ultimate taboo. It is reasonable to conclude that those unacquainted with the truth will be most likely to risk violating the internalized taboo when the forbidden truth is presented in surroundings that suggest the forbidden truth has been uncovered by someone who is rational and (why not?) even genteel. To this end, it is valuable to talk about things other than the Jews in order to demonstrate one's intelligence, insight, and reasonableness [I]in general[/I].
2005-08-04 21:09 | User Profile
I can recall plenty of articles pertaining directly to Jews or Jewish issues on MR over the past 6 months or so I've been reading it, perhaps not virulently anti-Semitic ones but unquestionably beyond the standards of 'mainstream' discussion. I'm sure I've read commenters over there say that John Ray is obsessed Hitler and Jews, too.
I have noticed a definite trend to not overemphasise the Jewish Question when it comes to the larger, more nuanced issues however. Perhaps this is off-putting for some. I find it refreshing.
2005-09-11 03:02 | User Profile
That would be me who was fired....
I ran across this site while using Google.
I can't post articles yet, but when I can there's a lengthy story about what happened.
2005-09-11 03:07 | User Profile
YT,
Make ten posts and then you will be able to start threads. If you are who you say you are, well, I've always enjoyed your columns. I and others look forward to hearing your side. Rockwell lost on this one.
2005-09-11 03:38 | User Profile
Bob, you can certainly post your story to this thread if you'd like. (And welcome aboard, of course.)
2005-09-11 03:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Bob, you can certainly post your story to this thread if you'd like. (And welcome aboard, of course.)[/QUOTE]
Like this?
Out, Damned Spot! Out! by Bob Wallace
I used to write for a site called LewRockwell.com. But no more. My archives have been erased, and on top of that, they have been erased from the Google cache, which can only happen if the owner of the site where they articles were posted requests it (I’ve already saved all of them, so not to worry). Now who could it be who did this, I wonder?
Here’s what happened: I occasionally post outrageous comments at various sites, wondering what kind of response I’ll get. Call it bait. I have found out you have to push the envelope to get a truthful response from people. So I pushed it.
This particular time, I made some very crude remarks about race and ethnic groups. What I said was essentially the truth, but I said it in a rather brutal way. The reason? Perception travels through the emotional brain first, to the rational brain last. Then includes you, me, and everyone else, including those who considers themselves the most egghead of intellectuals. Many of whom, in my opinion, believe some of the dumbest ideas on earth. Not only that, they're gullible and naive.
What I did, I did on purpose, to bypass the rational brain. I had made similar comments before, without a peep from anyone – except for those who agreed with me.
This time, finally, I got a response, and woo hoo was it one! One person in particular, a leftwing PC narcissistic homosexual named Tom Palmer (who styles himself a libertarian, but isn’t) took my comments and sent them all over the Internet to God knows who. He even made nine comments (all of them the same) at a site I blog at. This is mental illness. In some ways I feel sorry for him, because he's fighting battles he's already lost. Narcissistic self-deception will do that to you.
Another site, No Treason (they’re the exact opposite, what with supporting totally open borders), also posted my comments and wrote extensively about them. This is a site run by people who make obscene sexual comments about women, including one I know. Apparently they think they're funny. They're the only ones.
All of them were so dumb they didn’t realize what I was doing. I’m not surprised at anything self-styled intellectuals do.
They proved what I'm been saying for years: there are leftwing libertarians and rightwing ones. The leftwing ones tend toward anarchism and confused thought. Like I said, they're gullible, and will fall for...well, a lot.
The comments at various sites fell into two categories: the more rightwing ones who supported free speech, and the PC leftists, who believe in Thoughtcrime. The leftists, being more narcissistic (as all leftists are) were writing about me as if I was a bad person. Not one realized I had tricked them.
After thinking about this for years, I've decided the leftwing ones (or ancaps, meaning anarcho-capitalists) are actually Marxists. Marx thought all the god-like qualities of humanity would blossom like hot-house flowers once the State "withered away." That's exactly what leftist-libertarians think. And if they think that, they have another think coming. What I wrote is what would really happen.
I didn’t bother to defend or explain myself. I was curious as to how the whole thing would play out. And that’s how my archives were erased, including the Google cache.
So, you ask, what did I write? I pointed out, in exactly one paragraph, that blacks have an mean average IQ that is genetically lower than whites, which is why they’re on the bottom in every country of the world, including Africa. These are the facts, folks, and everyone knows it. To ignore these things is to condemn many, many Africans to poverty and death.
Of course, this is something leftists will tolerate, as long as it doesn't intrude on their groovy little fantasy world.
What I wrote doesn’t mean I hate blacks, which of course is what leftists will always say. It just means we need the free market so people, no matter what their IQ, can find a high-paying job and support themselves so the government won’t destroy neighborhoods, families and people’s individual lives with welfare. And I know perfectly well there will always be smart ones who will rise to the top.
I also wrote that Jews have been expelled from nearly every country in the world – sometimes more than once – because of their attempts to destroy every culture that admits them. And under a completely free market, without government interference, many Jews will be ostracized. Everyone who is honest about it, knows this is true, too.
I also pointed out that the Chinese and Asian Indians have a problem with ancient, ossified cultures that have destroyed much of their creativity.
There were a few things I didn’t say, such as the fact that homosexuals, who make up less than two percent of the population, are responsible for one-third of child sex crimes (like murder, rape and molestation) and two-thirds of all AIDS cases. So, please, don’t tell me there are no differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. There are.
Those Catholic priests molesting kids? They’re not pedophiles. They’re pederasts, which is what many homosexuals are – they like boys in their early teens. And what percentage of those priests are committing these molestations? Two percent…just as two percent of the population is homosexual. Interesting tidbit, isn’t it?
Let's put it this way: stereotypes wouldn't exist unless there was truth to them. Or: all stereotypes are true.
What didn’t I write? How about that most lesbians are man-haters? And that Islam is the worst thing that ever happened to the world, and destroyed the ancient and advanced civilizations of Iraq and Iran? And that I consider the Koran no more a holy book than I do Mein Kampf?
Let’s see…what else? Blacks, Jews, homosexuals, Asians and Indians. Did I miss anyone? How about those crackpot Evangelicals who think they can bring Jesus back by killing Palestinians? Oh -- I forgot – I can say that without any problem.
In a very rough, general way, this is what you would get under a completely free market: whites and Asians at the top, Mexicans in the middle, blacks at the bottom, except for sports and music. Of course, this does not count for every individual. I'm speaking in generalities. And, to repeat, this doesn't apply to every individual; exceptional ones, of any race and ethnic group, can make his or her way to the top. And to repeat again: I'm for the free market so all people can make lots of money and support themselves and their families without the government interfering and destroying everything.
What did I learn from this little escapade? That even libertarians, who pride themselves on their intellectual and moral superiority, are a tribe, just like everyone else. They have taboos, ones that if you transgress will lead to expulsion. That’s what happened to me.
Libertarianism as a philosophy is sound, if at times somewhat idealistic. Unfortunately, a lot of the people aren't sound at all. Facts are stubborn things, and many of your leftist libertarians don't like them at all.
You want to know something? If I had to do it all over again, I’d do it exactly the same way. It was much too enlightening to want to give up what I discovered. I finally got the truth about libertarians. It wasn't very pretty, either. A lot of them are losers living in their little circle-jerk fantasy world.
All the emails I got supported me, although as I said, some off the posts I read at various forums didn't, and clearly exposed the leftist PC in way too many libertarians.
Look at it this way, folks: the human race has advanced technology, but otherwise is still stuck in One Million Years B.C. Only there’s no Raquel Welch in a two-piece fur bikini in sight.
2005-09-11 04:27 | User Profile
IR,
Welcome aboard, Bob. You're right about certain types of Libertarians. Left Libertarians and Anarcho-capitialists do share alot in common with Marxists. I find them to be p.c. lite when it comes to borders, culture and history, in short, economic men.
2005-09-11 04:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle] All the emails I got supported me, although as I said, some off the posts I read at various forums didn't, and clearly exposed the leftist PC in way too many libertarians. [/QUOTE] Thank you for doing this. I had considered myself a libertarian for some time. Then I started to notice this new wave of "intellectuals" and realized I was surrounded by Marxists.
2005-09-11 11:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BlueBonnet]Thank you for doing this. I had considered myself a libertarian for some time. Then I started to notice this new wave of "intellectuals" and realized I was surrounded by Marxists.[/QUOTE]
What happened to me was truly an eyeopener. I have always considered myself a libertarian, although a right-wing or conservative one. But now I see an influx of leftist, anarchist -and oftentimes homosexual - "libertarians," who want to define libertarianism according to their standards. They hate Lew Rockwell, because Lew is a conservative Catholic. They want to see him and people like him gone, completely. I almost never say these things, but Tom Palmer has gone completely off of the deep end. And he's high up in the Cato Institute. The label "libertarian" is so tainted these days I no longer want to use it. I think I'll just call myself a free-market conservative.
And it's too bad Lew won't stand up to these people. He knows perfectly well they want to destroy him, because he is the right-wing "father-figure" that all leftists wish to otherthrow. He knows the truth about other things, the things that got me booted out. It's okay to use code words, like "neocon" and "Zionist," when everyone knows exactly what they mean. By the way, some of the other writers at LRC privately believe the things I wrote, although of course they can't say them.
2005-09-11 12:21 | User Profile
[FONT=Arial][COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "The label "libertarian" is so tainted these days I no longer want to use it. I think I'll just call myself a free-market conservative."[/I][/B][/COLOR][/FONT]
Yertle, you may want to check out this thread, where we seek to find a properly balanced [B]synthesis[/B] between libertarianism and conservatism: [SIZE=4] [B]"Libertarianism, Conservatism, and Christianity"[/B][/SIZE]
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19177&highlight=rushdoony[/url]
Petr
2005-09-11 12:30 | User Profile
I've written many articles trying in my own small way to reconcile libertarianism with Christianity. I've come to the conclusion you cannot escape religion. It's simply not possible.
I noticed you mentioned the semi-lunatic Ayn Rand. I've had far too much experience with her followers, almost all of whom appeared to be disturbed.
2005-09-11 16:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle]I've written many articles trying in my own small way to reconcile libertarianism with Christianity. I've come to the conclusion you cannot escape religion. It's simply not possible.
I noticed you mentioned the semi-lunatic Ayn Rand. I've had far too much experience with her followers, almost all of whom appeared to be disturbed.[/QUOTE] I've always thought that for a true libertarian society to take place the populace would have to be extremely moral. In other words they would have to look to somewhere other than the government for their moral compases, they'd have to be religious, and probably of the same religion.
The new leftist libertarians seem to be very childish in that they want to do whatever they want without accepting any responsibility for themselves. This in my view, is the exact opposite of what a Libertarian is. I had looked at the Cato institutes web site a few months back and was just astonished at how much liberal crap had infiltrated it.
About the Ayn Rand followers being disturbed, you got that right. I had met a libertarian through a friend of mine, he was a Rand follower. Soon I found out that he was homosexual and rather unstable mentally.
2005-09-11 16:45 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red][FONT=Arial][B][I] - "The new leftist libertarians seem to be very childish in that they want to do whatever they want without accepting any responsibility for themselves."[/I][/B][/FONT][/COLOR]
Traditional Roman Catholic E. Michael Jones has written a very profound essay on this question, using the Lewinsky scandal (and liberal-libertarian people who took it lightly) as his starting point:
[url]http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_mar98/wolf.html[/url][FONT=Georgia] [SIZE=3]
...
"Demos, which is the ancient Greek word for poor white trash, often has trouble thinking, especially when his mind has been darkened by sexual license, so he has recourse to the talking class, which does his thinking for him in terms that make no sense but which mirror the latest opinion polls and tells Demos what he wants to hear or what he needs to hear in order to make him comfortable in his subjugation. [B]Demos, as usual, doesnââ¬â¢t get it when it comes to lââ¬â¢affaire Lewinsky. His understanding of the moral issue, as framed by the talking class, goes as follows: ââ¬ÅIf Clinton can get away with it, so can I.ââ¬Â [/B]Or as expressed in one Doonesbury strip: ââ¬ÅWhere can I get an intern?ââ¬Â
Demos as usual doesnââ¬â¢t get it, because he doesnââ¬â¢t see that the world is not just made up of people like him, even if the President of the United States does act like poor white trash. The Greeks were smart enough to see that the world was radically bifurcated into two classes; the aristoi, their word for the best, which at the time involved virtue, something related to manliness, vir in the Latin, and strength, and the polloi, the common man, from which we get the term hoi polloi. The aristoi, in keeping with the collapse of standards which followed from implementation of the Enlightenment, are now merely the rich. The English ideology, the rebirth of neoliberalism which the pope decried in Cuba, the ideology of laissez faire: all have decreed that government will be plutorcracy, which is to say, that it will serve the interests of the rich at the expense of the common good. Hoi Polloi are the rest of us. Aristotle could talk about whether men were slaves by nature or by law, but he never in his wildest dreams would imagine a world in which the great majority were not slaves whose lives were there principally to benefit those who were ââ¬Åfreeââ¬Â because they owned them. The Clinton Administration, no matter what it calls itself, is based on these principles. The rich can do whatever they want. Their pleasure is more important that the poor manââ¬â¢s life, if he is a fetus, or his job if he is a worker, or his virtue if he is a woman.
[B]A fallen world always reverts to this configuration, and as a result Demos better get one thing straight. Bill Clinton may act like poor white trash but he is not one of them. Bill Clinton is part of the ruling class and one of the illusions they love to create is that they are just like the rest of us, which is not true. They are not like the rest of us because they are rich and/or powerful, and so when they urge Demos to break the moral law in the interest of some specious liberation they are really bringing about his enslavement.[/B]
Why? [B]Because the moral law is the only thing that protects the poor. Because Demos is neither rich nor powerful, the only protection he has against the predations of the rich and the powerful is the law, which is to say the moral law and positive based on it. If he liberates himself from the moral law, he creates a society in which desire is the only measure of right and wrong.[/B] But a world like this, no matter what Demos thinks, is not democratic, because in the absence of moral order, the desires of the rich will always triumph over the desires of the weak and the poor. As I said before, this is the lesson of Roe v. Wade. The desires of the powerful are more important than the life of the weak. The same applies to the political world at large. A world without morals is a world in which the rich get to do whatever they want. In this the Clinton administration is the poor white trash version of the O. J. Simpson trial.
Demos got it wrong because he failed to understand that a world without morals is a radically two-tiered universe, power and wealth being the main distinction between these two groups. [B]Demos is seduced into supporting sexual liberation with the promise that he can now do whatever he wants. This is followed by a momentary sense of intoxication, which is followed by a period of acting out his fantasies, which is followed by another more sobering thought: [U]If I can do anything I want to them, Demos suddenly realizes, then they can do anything they want to me.[/U] [/B]Itââ¬â¢s that simple. And suddenly we understand why horror is always the natural consequence of sexual liberation.
In towns like South Bend, Indiana this scenario usually plays itself out in the following way. During the midst of lââ¬â¢affaire Lewinsky, a 49-year-old woman shows up at the local bowling alley and guns down a 32-year-old woman and the 51-year-old man accompanying her. The 49-year-old woman, you have probably guessed by now, used to be the 51 year oldââ¬â¢s wife. If he can abrogate the moral law by taking up with another woman, then why canââ¬â¢t she follow suit by shooting both of them? Needless to say, if the Clintons hadnââ¬â¢t ended up in the White House, one or the other of them would have probably been gunned down in a trailer park or the parking lot of a bowling alley by now too. But that only brings up a second point.
The general anarchy which sexual liberation brings about is a function of power. In the absence of morals, the rich will get away with murder because their desires are more powerful, and power in this context is the only measure of right and wrong. [B]Either might makes right, or we are all bound by the terms of a moral order which is not of our making. There is no third alternative. If Demos abandons the moral order, he is ipso facto guaranteeing his subjugation because Demos is ipso facto neither rich nor powerful, simply by the fact that he is Demos.[/B]
Demos, after watching television all these years thinks that he is in the same class as the people who rule over him. He thinks he has the same prerogatives. The customer is king he is told as a way of convincing him to buy things he does not need. Seeing the gods of Hollywood and Washington acting like the gods which inhabited Olympus long ago, he feels that he too can ignore the moral order with impunity, until his ex-wife shows up in the parking lot of the bowling alley with a gun, like nemesis, to restore the order he spurned.
A world in which Bill Clinton is rewarded for lying, which is precisely the world we live in now, is not a world which will reward Demos for the same kind of behavior, because Demos is, as I said, ipso facto, not part of the ruling class. So once again, Demos gets it wrong. A world in which the ruler is rewarded for lying is a world in which his subjects can be punished for telling the truth. This is the lesson which Linda Tripp had to learn the hard way. [B]She and Monica Lewinsky are expendable, and if we allow the Clintons and the ruling class they represent to continue their transvaluation of all values, we will become expendable too. This is the lesson this country needs to learn, fast and before it is too late. The only protection the poor will ever have on this earth is the moral law, enculturated as the basis for the positive law.[/B] The only way a nation can guarantee rights is in light of that moral order, and any nation which subverts that moral order can only propose force, which is the rule of the rich and the powerful as its substitute."[/SIZE] [/FONT]
...
Petr
2005-09-11 16:52 | User Profile
"Demos, which is the ancient Greek word for poor white trash
You just made my year!