WHAT WOULD SHEMP BOMB?
I dunno. I was having a perfectly happy day minding my own biz while scouring the competing blogs to see if anything nasty was being said about yours truly, and no sooner do I hit THE NEXT BIG THING blogspot (which never says anything nasty about me...in fact I like 'em and I think they like me!) that I come across this, all ready and rarin' to ruin my day worse'n had some bloghead written a nasty anti-BTC screed to help kill another hundred or so sales! Well, not quite totally ruin it, but things like calculated chic sloganeering civil disobedience (especially when espoused by someone who should know better) does make for a nice premise for today's post which, for a change, rambles away from the usual music and gulcheral concerns that this writer and BLOG TO COMM are best known for.
Listen, I like the idea of peace. I even think there should be more of it in this world and as soon as possible, but the abstract concepts regarding peace and non-violence being touted about today just come off as altruistic jive when they sweetly flow from the lips of notorious con-men and a wide variety of socialist useful idiots. I mean, given the track record of the professional peaceniks out there with their cloying slogans you can see on freeway blogger and elsewhere ("War is not good for children and other living things"...gee, that's enough to make me wanna napalm an entire village of crippled orphans!), not forgetting their often unchecked streaks of vandalism, I almost feel like going out there and campaigning for faux-Republican George W. Bush given the appalling credentials of his sworn enemies!
At least there was a time when the (twentieth-century) Republicans were the Peace Party and the Democrats certainly weren't. It wouldn't be surprising, since if anything, war is one way to expand government control over every facet of life out there as the power-hungry Abraham Lincoln discovered and William McKinley (a Republican, but we're still talking nineteenth-century!), Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson perfected (I'll give Nixon a break here...after all, he inherited the mess!). All of 'em were war presidents and all of 'em used war to make themselves and their offices more powerful. Despite all of the movies and TV shows showing Abraham Lincoln to be a warm and witty folksy guy straight out of the Will Rogers/Andy Griffith playbook, he sure knew how to lock up Southern sympathizers and throw away the key. Wilson had people cheering him at the 1916 convention promising no American involvement in World War I, who fortunately saw the error of their ways and eventually helped give rise to the anti-war/government movements that helped pushed Barry Goldwater (who was pretty hawkish himself, but probably would have been much more prudent in how to wield his power had be not been trounced in '64) to the forefront of the Republican party at the expense of a lotta country club snoots no less. As for the beloved FDR, he sure knew how to put the screws on businesses and politicians who got in his way and later on threw all of the West Coast Japanese into concentration camps much to the joy of a lotta yes-men out there. (According to the book LEFTISM REVISITED, Roosevelt was presented with the tailbone of a Japanese soldier killed at the Battle of Midway, which he gladly accepted!) And hate to tell you Democrats out there this, but George W. Bush is more or less carrying out that great tradition of your party., the one you don't always like to talk about (mainly war) along with that other great tradition that you love to blab about all over the place (expanding government even more than LBJ coulda dreamed of...but at least he cuts a nice swath with the lumpen anti-left so I guess he can get away with it without being seriously challenged).
Now, I can't see exactly how some right wingers would actually wanna go out and support John Kerry or Ted Rall like a few are doing, as if Mr. Atrocity himself stands for anything remarkably different than what's happenin' now. If anything, things will remain the same no matter who's in there, though as Russell "CAN'T BUY A THRILL" Desmond told me, the only difference between the two at this point is that Bush won't raise taxes. Good point, but I won't hold my breath.
Then again, the professional antiwar types are laden with contradictions themselves. First off they keep talking about absolute freedoms regarding a variety of cool causes, as long as these freedoms are copasetic with their own ideals of a world where everyone is happy and marching in lockstep with their Great Leader smiling in approval. No need to tell you all about the violence these acknowledged pacifists love to revel in against people whose freedom to stick up for their candidate is certainly being abridged, and without any sort of meaningful, deservedly humiliating chastisement I should add. And then again, when there's a war that suits the professional peaceniks' purposes you can bet your bottom dollar that these acknowledged pacifist types are gonna be all for it! Like they were with the Spanish Civil War, that great attempt by the communists and their lackeys to overtake the Iberian peninsula in the name of "the people" using every cockamammie excuse in the book ("Oh, but the entire country was disproportionately filled with priests and nuns!!!" Yeah, and have you ever counted the rabbis in Israel??? I mean, what would you have expected in pre-free immigration Spain, a nation brimming fulla Swedenborgians?????) And people think I'm a hypocrite! Yeah, you can be free not to own weaponry and rely on the police (right, even though the left hates 'em just for what cops are even if these peace officers aren't club-swinging thugs!). You can be free to espouse your own political beliefs if you like, but since yours are beyond the pale don't complain when you get beat up or your car gets keyed. It's everything to pop off your opinions on the current war if you're a demagogue socialist-type like Michael Moore (who is allowed to do what he wants and I understand has more than a few points you can't deny are worth listening to, but when it's wrapped up in that hip-even-NEWER-left smarm it comes off like just another one of his massive bowel movements) but just try letting Mel Gibson make a movie reflecting his religious beliefs without jumping to a lotta conclusions that you KNOW are never gonna happen! Wow, what open-minded, all-encompassing idealists these starry-eyes are. Too bad there aren't enough ice-picks to go around, or enough Trotskys for that matter!
And yeah, either alternative leaves more'n a lot to be desired (didja see how some of the Republicans were phoning up gullible boobs tellin' 'em how the Dems were gonna confiscate their bibles???) and having a president who is about as liberal as John Kennedy somehow be the standard-bearer of the right (especially when there are serious anti-left purveyors of useful ideas out there like Justin Raimondo, Ron Paul, and Pat Buchanan, all of whom happen to be solidly antiwar in the Old Right tradition) only goes to show you just how far left the left has gone, with the current "right" wigglin' somewhere in what used to be the middle. In either case, the right wing as it stands today is more or less like the Republicans in the wake of FDR (people forget just how much of a Democrat Ike, and for that matter Gerald Ford really were!) while the Democrats are shoveling the same old same old at ya which all of the professional prole types are gonna cheer on, at least until they get tired of Kerry and berate him for not going socialist enough just like they did with Carter. It's a losing proposition either way. As for me, I'm gonna let Paul Craig Roberts and not Michael Moore speak for me as far as my antiwar concerns go, and if I do decide to get up from under the bed to vote November 2 I won't waste my "power" (hah!) pulling either the "D" or "R" tab...I'll give a well-deserved vote to whoever's running on the Constitution Party ticket, or maybe the Libertarians if I so desire or even Ralph Nader if he makes it to Pennsylvania (well, Pat Buchanan sorta likes him and I gotta admit he'd make a better choice than either of the biggies if only because I don't think he'll have the energy or mandate to pull off some of his wilder ideas). But as it stands, either way it don't look good...on one hand seeing Bush get four more years is gonna alienate anyone from pursuing more anti-government, anti-interventionist and libertarian-right movements within the establishment (like I said, during the seventies libertarianism was poised to be the dominant theory of the right wing, only it hadda've been taken over by the feely-good paternalistic types out there!) and on the other, with Kerry in place all of those mouth-frothing Stalinist mind-clampers are gonna be running rampant tearing down every aspect of real free thought (if you thought that campus leftists confiscating newspapers of opposing opinions and publicly harassing political enemies in the nineties was bad, just you wait and see what's gonna happen once these same nimnuls get a foothold!). I only wonder how many more people are going to be beat up and automobiles damaged before its all over. And I also wonder just how long a fellow can live under a bed! Maybe I should do what William Shakespeare did when things were getting too hot and violent in London for his own tastes...mainly scrambootch to the woods and cool off for the rest of my life. I'll tell ya, it makes for a much better choice'n to play into any of the "options" we have to look forward to!
Sunday, October 17, 2004
WHAT WOULD SHEMP BOMB?