Tuesday, March 20, 2007

The Effete Versus the Peons

Rolling Thunder checkpointWhen I was at the Eagles’ gathering last Saturday, I stood for a while with some of the Rolling Thunder guys while they screened people who wanted to enter the walkway that led to the Vietnam War Memorial.

The first time I saw one of the vets turn away a protester at the checkpoint, I asked him, “What are you doing, screening out the moonbats?”

“Well,” he replied, “let’s just say ‘the college-educated’.”

I thought about what he said when I went up to Moonbat Central a few minutes later to scope out the demonstrators. There were some veterans taking part in the demonstration up there, but not many. Besides the Aztlans and the Palestinians — who were out in force — the crowd consisted mainly of college students and aging boomers, hippies for whom the sixties never ended.

It was definitely an effete crowd, a bunch of people who had enough education to know that they were better than the vulgar flag-wavers down the hill, people who were sure that they had a truer knowledge of the world than all of the great unwashed with their repulsive patriotic display over by the Vietnam memorial.

By all rights I should have been with the protesters. I come from a solid middle-class background. I’m a college-educated man and an unabashed intellectual. I’ve read Chaucer and Schopenhauer. I listen to Bach. I even like to drink latte.

So why is it that I felt at home among those Rolling Thunder guys with their flags and their Harley-Davidsons? Why did those demonstrators seem to be aliens from Arcturus?

All I know is that the veterans are my people, and the ANSWER folks most assuredly are not.

The Party for Sedition and Treason

The Party for Socialism and LiberationThe major issue that keeps me out of the ranks of the moonbats is that I love my country. No matter what Nancy Pelosi and Hillary do when they’re running the place, I still love my country.

The same cannot be said of the demonstrators. They claim that they love America, but when you listen to what they have to say, there isn’t a single example of American history or culture of which they approve. They revere Cuba, Palestine, North Korea, and any other barbaric thug-state, so long as it’s an enemy of the United States.

And I don’t think electing Democrats is going to ease their dissatisfaction much — they are, after all, communists, and nothing short of the Revolution will cure their alienation from Amerikkka.

Take, for example, this paragraph from The Militant, whose members were among the demonstrators:
- - - - - - - - - -
Here in Washington Democrats continue to posture in “opposition” to the war. Their latest charade is to attach amendments to a $100 billion supplemental bill on war spending that would also set Sept. 1, 2008—two months before the next U.S. presidential election—as the date for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq. As with previous proposals of this type, it faces substantial opposition from within both parties.

As far as these folks are concerned, the Democrats are taking their campaign donations and then acting like warmongering imperialist running dog lackeys! They’re no better than the Rethuglicans! You can bet they’ll be among the first up against the wall and blindfolded when the commissars finally take control.

Socialism is the Dream That Will Not Die. I picked up some literature from one of the groups and scanned it to present here for your edification.

The Party for Socialism and LiberationThe Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) is a newly-formed working-class party of leaders and activists from many different struggles, founded to promote revolutionary change. Capitalism — the system where all wealth and power lies with a handful of big banks and corporations — is the source of the problems facing humanity today: “endless war,” poverty, exploitation, layoffs, unemployment, racism, sexism, LGBT oppression. Socialism is what we’re fighting for: a society where all wealth belongs to those who produce it, for the benefit of all, based on solidarity instead of greed and competition. Do you want to learn more about socialism and Marxism? Do you want to join us in struggle? Contact the PSL, check out our website, subscribe to our magazine, and get involved… The time is now!

“Working-class”? How many of those people at the Lincoln memorial were really working class? Do working-class people consider LGBT oppression to be among their highest priorities? How many in the Socialist Workers’ Party are really workers?

One of the notable features of the Socialist conglomeration was how splintered it was into different and distinct sub-groups and sects. Christine of the 910 Group was there, and had this to report:

Along Portapotty Walk — marked by a row of small Cuban flags on the south end, and a Palestinian flag at the north — there were pairs of people selling socialist newspapers, but each one was not only a different paper, it was from a different party. The Revolutionary Communists… Socialist Workers’ Party… Freedom Road Workers’ Party… several others, each anxiously and earnestly affirming that it was different from the others.

But on being asked exactly what the difference was, one person said, “Well, Cuba. We’re different from other groups on Cuba. Somehow…” Passersby seemed to welcome having all that reading material there given the proximity of the portapotties — though reading may not have been the intended use.

I’m reminded of Protestant denominations, of schisms over Predestination and the true nature of the Paraclete. Trotsky or Che? Lenin or Mao? Can the Dictatorship of the Proletariat wait, or must it be ushered in immediately?

And Socialism is not without its lighter moments. Take this St. Valentine’s Day treatise on Revolutionary Love, from Freedom Road (Organización Socialista Camino de la Libertad):

I want to talk about love this month not because the corporate holiday is coming up but because it is a little summed-up experience that has a big impact on our movement. I draw here from both theory and practice. I am in no way an expert on dating or love, with my limited experience of it, but my mother always said that the people who struggle make the best teachers. She was talking about math as an example, not the struggle, but I think you can apply it to both. In either case, I think I might make a good teacher.

Revolutionaries need love is the point here and we need to share love with other [sic] in our circle in good principled ways. Of course the conditions we live under — hegemony, oppression, patriarchy — affect all of this. Maybe you can learn from my mistakes, or Lenin’s if you prefer…

Revolutionaries need love! Have you hugged your Trotskyite today?

Watch out — those bomb belts really hurt your chest when you hug those righteous Hamas dudes.


Thanks to Christine from the 910 Group for all the moonbat research.

18 comments:

talnik said...

College educated:think Gramsci. And so few of them know! But to those who do, this comment makes sense.

livfreerdie said...

Welcome to the Force, Luke, uh...Baron!

Tom

Dymphna said...

talnik--

Do you mean get introduced to Gramsci in a survey course and experience a conversion in your thinking? Probably happens to a lot of kids...who then go on to grow out of it.
___________

livfreerdie--

heh.

a4g said...

I suspect it's all that Bach counterpoint that's turned you into a tool of the corporate establishment, Baron. If you're going to free your mind, go atonal. Listen to Cage, Reich, or even Glass. A few hours of that and you'll feel right at home with the protesters.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

Do you mean get introduced to Gramsci in a survey course and experience a conversion in your thinking?

Not quite. One of Gramsci's several big ideas was that since socialist-ization from the bottom up (workers first) had failed, the idea was start a cultural revolution from the top of society down by first corrupting the upper class young in universities. Figure that most of the moonbats have never heard of Gramsci, only vaguely know of the Frankfurt school, and are untirely unaware that their thinking has been saturated through by the results of ther aforementioned Gramsci. Gramsci and co intended for them to destroy society, they naively think that they are meant to save it.

talnik said...

Dymphna:
Yes. As you know,Gramsci thought cultural hegemony was necessary for capitalism, which explains the multiculturalism meme taught to the kids. He also thought that Westerners would not accept the lower quality of life provided by socialism, unless we were taught to hate our institutions, such as marriage, Christianity, the military and so on. That's pretty much what's being taught in most schools today. The longer the kids are steeped in it, the longer it takes them to grow out of it.
The problem is, what originally began as a means to get us to accept socialism will eventually hurt us in our fight against Islamofacism.

talnik said...

Fellow Peacekeeper: You answered while I was typing, and explained it better than I did. It's true that Gramsci and the guys at Columbia (Frankfort School)believed that Western society would need to be destroyed before world socialism could be achieved. Gramsci came up with the idea and the fellows at Columbia realized that institutional indoctrination was the vehicle by which it could be achieved. In the last fifty years, the shift has gone from classical education to indoctrination. That's why the more formal education some people get, the moonbattier (my word, I call it!) they become. There is also a tendency in many societies to confuse education with intelligence (especially among the educated).

bernie said...

For the convenience of your readers: they may enjoy photo galleries from various sources of the recent Gathering Of Eagles in Washington DC. Here's the link.

Subvet said...

Talnik said, "There is a tendency in many societies to confuse education with intelligence (especially among the educated).

Amen to that one!

Roy said...

Universities serve up knowledge, but they no longer help the student acquire wisdom. Knowledge without wisdom is a dangerous thing very harmful thing.

There is an inverse relationship between the modern university and wisdom. One must be very careful in choosing a college these days, good ones a few and far between.
(Hard sciences being the exception, of course - being more difficult, but not impossible - to corrupt)

Roy said...

Arrgh! Small comment boxes are my nemesis! The typos never jump out until it's too late. *sigh* . So I'll try that again - my conscience demands it.

Universities serve up knowledge, but they no longer help the student acquire wisdom. Knowledge without wisdom is a dangerous thing. There is an inverse relationship between the modern university and wisdom. One must be very careful in choosing a college these days. Good ones and few and far between. (Hard sciences being the exception, of course - being more difficult, but not impossible - to corrupt).

OK, that's better. now I can move forward with my day. :-)

PapaBear said...

A planned economy is most attractive to those with sufficient hubris to think that they will be the planners.

Socialism is also attractive to those who think that it will allow them to "share" in the wealth of those more productive than them. Their enthusiasm for sharing is lessened a little when someone points out how many people in the world there are who have even less than them, and who would just LOVE to get a piece of THEIR pie.

The children of inherited wealth can be seduced by socialism. They realize that they're not as smart or as energetic as Daddy, and could never repeat what Daddy did, if they had to start from scratch. This bothers their self-esteem. They dislike a system where the able can succeed, and failure serves as an indicator that the person just didn't have what it took to succeed

Roy said...

I have to agree with that, papabear.

Socialism has a direct appeal to the some of the worst elements of human nature - envy, sloth, laziness, and a rejection of personal responsibility. They hide their own personal greed behind totally dishonest facades of 'compassion', 'fairness', and 'equality'. All they're really interested in is absolving their own guilt, because in deep within their hearts, they know what they are.

Given the choice between 'earning' and 'entitlement' it's no surprise which path character deficient individuals will choose.

Archonix said...

Roy, it's arguable whether universities even serve up knowledge anymore. The proliferation of "meeja'n'culcha" degrees, where the students learn how to sneer in big words at anything popular or, as they prefer to call it, 'populist' is quite alarming for anyone who did a half-way decent course. Even good courses at good universities aren't a guarantee of learning anything remotely useful (or anything at all) these days. I did a BSc and a MSc in digital special effects, which is quite demanding, yet I had to spend at least a quarter of each year in 'media analysis' lectures, learning about phallic representations and the oedipus complex. The sad thing is, I skipped most of those lectures - except when they were showing a good film - and I still managed to ace the papers I had to write. It's all made up...

Next time you hear someone utter the phrase "semiotic analysis", shoot them.

M. Simon said...

Way back in the day I was a Communist.

Yeah, I know. My only excuse is that I was young and stupd.

The arguments between the Stalinists and Trots went on for hours and hours and hours.

Each trying to convince the others that it had the "correct" view based on dialectcal materiaism, Marx, Lennin and who ever else could be dragooned to support a particular argument.

Intellectuals (I was one at the time) love that crap. Better than a debating society as the questions never changed and no one ever won the argument.

Lakshmi said...

Socialism: the fast track to wealth. Please read this pamphlet, attend that meeting, and donate to the cause.

Wait, that sounds suspiciously like an old-fashioned con game.

David M said...

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/21/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

Jason_Pappas said...

Some good comments above. Roy has some wisdom! ;)

I've read Chaucer and Schopenhauer. I listen to Bach. I even like to drink latte. -the Barron

Odd, you don't sound like Fraser Crane. But seriously, I understand their skepticism. Given the stench in the universities one likes to distance oneself as far as possible.

One of the pleasures I've gotten from reading and sharing Cicero with my readers is from the fact that here is a former Roman leader, a "new man" who rose from non-aristocratic roots to the highest office in Rome, and he writes philosophy. He has to convince his Roman audience that it's a manly Roman thing to do and a practical pursuit worthy of its place in Roman society.

Of course being a thinker and man of public affairs, Cicero must have impressed our founding fathers -- who read him in college and read him in the original Latin. Now there's a group of thinkers with their feet on the ground ... or battlefield, to be more exact. If we could get thinkers and statesmen like them today.