Sunday, April 23, 2017

Reason and Capitalism or Unreason and Environmentalism: Choose Wisely



Hat Tip to Andrew Benjamin

This article was published on April 21st on Objective Standard.com

By Craig Biddle   4/21

In his book Extinction, Paul Ehrlich insists that “the notion of ‘rights’” applies to non-human creatures and “even to such inanimate components of ecosystems as rocks and landforms” . And, he says, human beings, in our “drive for wealth,” violate the rights of these creatures, rocks, and landforms. Only if human beings stop producing wealth—that is, stop producing the values on which human life and prosperity depend—can we stop violating their rights.

In his book Defending the Earth, David Foreman agrees that the problem is indeed human wealth creation. And he adds that the deeper problem is the social system based on the recognition and protection of man’s rights, capitalism, which is what enables and encourages wealth creation. Thus Foreman calls for “radical, anti-capitalist social change”, which requires abandoning the premise that “human beings are the measure of all value.” That notion, says Foreman, “is stark, raving insanity” .

Understanding all of this, however, requires a certain mental approach, explains Foreman. It requires “being non-rational” and using “the good old reptilian cortex”. It requires turning away from reason, observation, and inductive awareness—and toward unreason, “intuitive, instinctive awareness”. If, however, we are willing to make that leap, we can see not only the fact that rocks have rights, but also its corollary: that capitalism and all of its components must be destroyed. 


Because Foreman, Ehrlich, and company have taken this leap and abandoned reason, they are able to see “truths” that rational people are not able to see. For instance, as Foreman explains:

When people talk to me about the destruction of property, about the evils of destroying bulldozers, all I can say is that a bulldozer is made out of iron ore. It’s part of the Earth. A bulldozer is the Earth, transmogrified into a monster destroying itself. By monkeywrenching it [i.e., by destroying it], you liberate a bulldozer’s dharma nature and return it to the Earth.

If the idea of liberating a bulldozer’s dharma nature and returning it to the Earth strikes you as crazy, it’s because you’re not using your good old reptilian cortex or your intuitive, instinctive awareness.

You have a choice. If you want to join the environmentalist movement and its drive for radical, anti-capitalist social change, you must abandon reason and embrace your intuitive, instinctive, reptilian awareness. Only then can you understand the “truth” of environmentalism and be a radical against capitalism.

If, however, you want to defend capitalism, protect man’s rights, enable wealth creation, and foster human flourishing, you must embrace reason, observation, and logic, so that you can see the enormous life-serving values that are man’s rights, freedom, and industrialization.

In sum, your choice is reason and capitalism—or unreason and environmentalism.

Choose wisely.

And who are the principle enemies of the environment? Why, WHITE MEN, of course. Take a look at yesterday's article on The Coach's Team, entitled The True Agenda of the Far Left, Laid Out for All to See. The left clearly believe that all would be well with the world if only the influence of White Men could be done away with!   Ed.


Trump refused to be railroaded so the far left settled for O’Reilly



by Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer

"Bring Him Down," was the driving force behind the sexual harassment movement against Bill O'Reilly said Lisa Bloom, the woe is me, lady attorney to female members of The View.  While wearing a bright red, short sleeve dress with V cut at the neck to draw an arrow to her cleavage, Attorney Bloom told Whoppie Goldberg, "An important part of our legal strategy (was)…to Bring Him Down." A thigh shot could be seen as she spoke from her vantage point in the audience.  Her client Perquita Burgess told all: "I felt triumphant…very cathartic." Burgess, dressed all in black including an enormous Afro, described to Whoppie that Bill O'Reilly made her feel uncomfortable because he said, "Hey, hot chocolate," when he walked by her desk when she was a temp at FOX way back in '08.  Burgess also said his throat clearing sounds sounded like "grunting, groaning."  Can you believe this? A legal term of art involves attorneys saying something like, "When there's money involved, plaintiffs come out of the woodwork." But Bloom assured The View that money was not their aim here, perhaps because the hot chocolate remark had cooled too much since its utterance way back in 2008.

I go back in my memory to my own experiences travelling to Japan and Athens, Greece, to put some of this “only in America,” sexual harassment silliness into perspective.  I was in the lovely home of my foreign exchange student and her husband, a brilliant young ophthalmologist who laughed as we talked about the Clarence Thomas Congressional hearings.  Remember way back then when Anita Hill was testifying about the pubic-hair-on-the-coke-can?  My host told me that he and his colleagues just thought this entire televised event was hilarious.  "We just laughed; we couldn't believe it," he said.  The Japanese doctors were incredulous because the world's most powerful country was on pause, by the female professor telling the world about being offended.  Why was the left's opposition so hardened against now Justice Thomas?  Because he was a conservative.  He had all of the checkmarks in place, albeit for a supposed non-partisan position.  Clarence Thomas was a Conservative, and that brought the academic shock troops out in force.

Now skip ahead a few years when I was up early watching TV on the small set in my Athens, Greece, hotel room.  I was killing time while I waited for my taxi to drive me to the beautiful new airport during my second visit to that extraordinary city. I flipped on CNN and all I could notice was how professionally dressed the female news readers were; how non-sexual were their presentations of the world's news on that early morning in Athens. No hair flipping, no long hair extensions, no weaves, no sexy attire, but rather a professional appearance complete with blazer in similarity to what her male host was wearing.  I had forgotten about these two examples until all of this O'Reilly mess began.

Let's read what some of the commenters say about these female sexual harassment victims.

"This is such BS. There is another agenda…This ‘I am woman hear me roar’ is getting out of hand," says Cyan Plane.  Green scissors says, "What an utterly ridiculous thing to fire a man over…where is her proof…send her home to her children. women need not be in the workplace…make things, baby sit, no more working around men." (Sarc alert here) And another commenter (TD) says: "I'll bet her black co-workers and friends talk a lot worse about her… She's probably OK with the Hip Hop songs calling women whores…I've worked with a lot of blacks in Post Office, and they talk to women a lot worse or crude than what she describes."   This is just a very small sample of how the message boards are coming down against the FOX cave to the “woe is me” ladies.  Kirsten Powers in all seriousness told CNN's Anderson Cooper about her travails at FOX.  Did she really date Anthony Weiner?

In a very prescient observation on his radio program this week, Glenn Beck said: "We worked closely with Bill on the road.  We never saw him utter a word that was even blue humor.  He was so buttoned up when he was around us, that I find these charges very hard to believe."  The title of the Beck piece was "With Bill O'Reilly Gone, It's the Beginning of the End of Fox News as We Know It."

So what is really going on here? Could we suggest that the Pussy-fication of America's media now firmly is in place? The NY DAILY NEWS is reporting that "Progressive wives of Murdoch sons played a key role in the firing of O'Reilly."  Sarah and Kathryn Murdoch are at least "partially responsible for his humiliating exit," the story continues, noting that Lachlan Murdoch’s wife Sarah is a Progressive, British born, media personality.  Other anecdotal remarks in other links suggest that FOX was out of touch with a younger audience and that the network  needed to be brought up to date with the in-crowd.  Look, when a recent report states that a mind blowing 89% of President Trump's media coverage so far has been negative, just what does that say about a country's media being out of touch?  Pillow talk, thigh flashing and ample cleavage, taking offense from a white man's remarks when far worse lyrics are evidenced every day in America' entertainment arena are strident examples of the fallacy of being harassed sexually.  Females and minorities yet again are letting themselves be used by the Progressive, Democrat change artists in America's culture who need malleable cynosures for their corrosive march toward global socialism!  When Burgess told the simpering VIEW listeners, "I was mortified; I took that as a Plantation remark," she was playing into the hands of masters of the universe.  Yet again, women let themselves be used by the left who pulled out the best legal argument they had to neutralize and remove the only right leaning cable outlet, the now forever changed FOX NEWS. These foolish ladies once again let themselves be used
by the men in their own tent, or rather (excuse the Political Incorrectness) their own limiting Plantation.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

The True Agenda of the Far Left Laid Out for All to See



The following article was published on FrontPage.com on April 20th

The Left's Ultimate Plan Revealed

Thanks to a hoax pulled on the Huffington Post.

By Jack Kerwick  4/20/17

For a distillation of the contemporary left’s worldview, one needn’t look any further than a blog post that was recently published at the Huffington Post: “Could it Be Time to Deny White Men the Franchise?”

At least one could have turned to this post—until HuffPo took it down.  But we’ll get to that shortly. 
(After being taken down by HuffPo, the original article is archived here.)  Ed.

The author, a person going by the name of “Shelley Garland,” a self-declared South African and graduate student in philosophy, argued that it is morally necessary to temporarily deny the franchise to white men.   

Moreover, at least some of their resources should be repossessed and “redistributed” to others.

Garland explains her reasons.  First, white men are bad for left-wing progressivism.  “Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year,” she writes, “have often been due to the votes of white men.”  She gives examples.  “If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa’s biggest cities.”

“If white men no longer had the vote,” Garland summarily states, “the progressive cause would be strengthened.”  She’s quick to underscore that she is proposing nothing more than “the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation),” for this is all that it would take to “go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world.”

Garland explains that “liberalism—and its ideological offshoots of conservatism and libertarianism—are the most popular ideologies among white males” because, “with their focus on individuals and individual responsibility, rather than group affiliation,” they “allow white men to ignore the debt that they owe society, and from acknowledging that most of their assets, wealth, and privilege are the result of theft and violence.”

Denying white men the vote, even if temporarily, would “strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.”

Another reason why white men need to be constrained is compensatory in nature.  The disenfranchisement of white men, Garland eagerly wishes, “could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners.  After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce modern capitalism.  A period of twenty years without white men in the world’s parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world’s wealth far more equitably shared.  The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.”

While admitting that it may indeed be “unfair” to adopt the measures that she urges, Garland insists that “this violent status quo will not change without a struggle, and the only way to do so will be through the expropriation of these various assets and equitably distribute them to those who need them.”  Going this route “will not only make the world a more equitable place, but will also go some way to paying the debt that white males owe the world.”  For “500 years,” such evils as “colonialism, slavery, and various aggressive wars and genocides, have been due to the actions of white men.”   

Thus: “Redistributing some of their assets will go some way to paying the historical debt that they owe society.”

The unfairness to white males “is a small price to pay for the pain inflicted by white males on others, particularly those with black and female-identifying bodies.”

Garland reiterates her call: “It is time to wrestle control of the world back from white males[.]”

The backlash on social media was immediate and relentless.  Initially, the editor-in-chief of HuffPo SA, Verashni Pillay, stridently defended the post.  Garland’s “underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world,” Pillay remarked, “is pretty standard for feminist theory.”

Moreover, it has “been espoused in many different ways by feminist writers and theorists for decades now.  In that sense, there was nothing in the article that should have shocked or surprised anyone (or so we thought).”

Pillay accuses critics of refusing to engage Garland’s blog post and informs them that there is no way to avoid her conclusion given her premises, premises that she and her ilk at the Huffington Post share with Garland.  “Dismantling the patriarchal systems that have brought us to where we are today, a world where power is wielded to dangerous and destructive ends by men, and in particular white men, necessarily means a loss of power to those who hold it.”

Pillay doesn’t mince words: “Those who have held undue power granted to them by the patriarchy must lose it for us to be truly equal.  This seems blindingly obvious to us all.”  

Then, however, something happened.

Huffington Post SA removed the post, supposedly because “the blog submission from an individual who called herself Shelley Garland, who claimed to be an MA student at UCT, cannot be traced and appears not to exist.” It then reaffirmed “the Constitutional values of South Africa,” especially “universal enfranchisement.”

The “Shelley Garland” post was a hoax.

A person, a female, claiming to be the author of the piece referred to it as “total garbage” that she packed with clichés—“black and female-identifying bodies,” “patriarchy,” etc.—that are common currency among the “less sensible left.”

“Shelley Garland” supplied to the nation an invaluable service.  In one little article, she revealed for all with eyes to see the gist to which the agenda of today’s left ultimately boils down:

It is resolutely, vehemently anti-white, specifically anti-white men

Leftists almost always hide behind abstractions and generalities.  They know that if they are too overt in expressing their plans for the rest of us, the latter would stall.  A real leftist wouldn’t want to state things as baldly as “Garland” did.  But as Pillay made abundantly clear before she and her employer had to go into damage control, “Garland’s” is the position of the hard left, and has been “for decades now.”

Thank you, “Shelley Garland,” for unveiling the truth.