A few nights ago, just before bedtime, I was swimming a final blog lap for the day and came upon an entry at my friend Rand Simberg’s blog, Transterrestrial Musings. It was a simple comment about Mike Huckabee’s plan to be “energy free by 2017.” Rand was merely pointing out that a commenter had made the coveted Simpsons Nerd / Physics Nerd / Political Nerd trifecta: “In this campaign we obey the laws of thermodynamics!”
Ha-ha! And now a quick scan of the comments before off to bed…
…and I find the following – apropos of precisely nothing – nasty little cut-and-paste slash job:
Have you considered the possibility yet that you might be ignorant American redneck hillbilly fascists?Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
Posted by american at December 12, 2007 07:24 PM
Now I see this sort of nonsense all the time. But for some reason, the sheer inappropriateness of it – the random, smug, bastardousity of it just got to me. I am somewhat ashamed to say it woke my inner Balrog:
And so, despite the lateness of the hour, I responded on the fly and wrote this (with three or four additional sentences added this evening):
Carl Sagan, when responding in detail to the obvious lunacy in Velikovsky’s WORLDS IN COLLISION thesis, said that doing so “sharpened the mind for useful work."I don’t really have the time to do this correctly, but just as something to do over a milk and cookie before bed:
American, have you considered the possibility you might be a f**king idiot?
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. During WWII, “Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism” were indeed common in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. They were identically common in the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. If patriotic displays are the sign of fascism and anti-fascism equally, then it seems to me you have proven nothing.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. Nowhere on the planet is there greater legal protection of individual rights than in ignorant redneck hillbilly fascist America. The Bill of Rights, with its iron-clad protections against self-incrimination and double-jeopardy (not to mention the writ of habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence), have never been matched in human history. And these protections are being strengthened, rather than weakened over time, as confessional protections and Miranda rights clearly show.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. Two concepts; let’s take them separately. Identification of Enemies: Al Qaeda was identified – rather slyly on our part – by the fact that they flew airplanes into Manhattan and Washington and then took credit for it. If that does not clear your bar as a realistic and accurate measure of a real – not imaginary – enemy, then you fail the Reasonable Man test. This will comes as more of a shock to you than it does to us. Second, a “scapegoat” is used to focus the rage of a group or individual on another to make up for slights and humiliations. It is the refuge of a loser… such as humiliated Germany in the 20’s and 30’s. The United States, you museum-grade idiot, is the most successful society in history: not just economically and militarily (as if that wasn’t enough) but also as the undisputed leader in science and technology, the arts, music, film and overall cultural influence. There has never been a people less in need of a scapegoat than Americans. YOU, however, are a loser. And your search for a scapegoat is rather pathetically unraveling.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Look at photos of genuinely fascist regimes: everyone is in uniform in 1930’s Germany. How many military uniforms do you see, today, in an American shopping mall, sporting event, or simple drive down the street? You’re an idiot. And you’re not an American, clearly… Socky McPuppet.
5. Rampant sexism. You describe Fascist societies as “male-dominant.” Watch American TV – which is the cultural pulse – and tell me where you have EVER seen a less ‘male-dominant’ paradigm: men are portrayed as idiots, louts, well-meaning dofuses, crybabies or rapists. This is the least ‘male-dominant’ society on record. Please elaborate on the “draconian laws” that keep women in their place in this country. I have four bosses, and three of them are women. We have a female Secretary of State, a female Speaker of the House and (likely) a female Democratic Presidental candidate. And I am now beginning to see that these arguments of yours are so pathetic that I am beginning to suspect my friend Rand is having me on.
6. A controlled mass media. You must be referring to those vast right-wing juggernauts of CBS, CNN, MSNBC: all in lockstep with the “ruling elite.” Not a word of criticism of those in power is ever heard there! Rand! You bastard! I’m onto you.
7. Obsession with national security. I am obsessed with national security to the extent that I think that’s where the threats are. But I am not a member of the ‘secret national security apparatus.’ Protesters march every weekend in this country and mouth the most vile personal attacks against elected officials without any repercussions. Now what is the difference between a Secret National Security Apparatus that never takes any action, and no ‘apparatus’ at all? That’s right. None. Idiot.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. President Bush appears to be a genuinely religious man. He has that right, you moron. Please show me where Bush (or anyone) has forced religious convictions, training, attendance or philosophy on anyone Hello? Idiot? Are you still there?
9. Power of corporations protected. The next sentence has within it, “although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control…”Hahahahahaha!!! Hilarious! You’re a comedy genius. As to corporations, it is true they do not obey the same laws as ordinary citizens. The rules corporations must follow – environmental, regulatory, etc. – are many orders of magnitude more restrictive than those people must follow. Those corporate executives that fail to obey the laws are put in jail. Google KENNETH LAY, you nitwit. Furthermore, you make the common leftist pinhead assumption that a corporation is a titanium BattleMech dropped from orbit. A Corporation, moron, is nothing more than a group of people banding together for a common goal. I am myself a corporation, and a part of many others. I guess that means I’m responsible (as management) for my own strict control (as a shuffling prole.) Douchebag.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. No, you can’t turn on any of the government-controlled news outlets without seeing daily the shooting and arrest of union leaders trying to organize workers. You are a tool. How long has it been since there was national coverage of the WGA strike? Half an hour, maybe? Whatever decline in Union power in the USA is related to the fact that more people have taken control of their lives in the information economy and function as freelancers. People are free-er (But not you. You’re still chained to idiot ideologies. They suit you. You wear them very well.)
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. I work in show biz, you magnificent imbecile. We are about to enter ‘kudos season’ – a three month orgy of no less than 20 nationally televised award shows for artists. Poor actors, their voices are soooo suppressed in this fascist culture. As for ‘intellectuals,” they do not need to mocked or suppressed. They beclown themselves with such regularity that the word “intellectual” generates peals of laughter. There is no one as stupid as Ward Churchill. I didn’t ‘suppress’ him. He suppresses himself every time he opens his mouth.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. As for the “draconian law enforcement state” see 2, above. Regarding the “glorified” police forces…. How many actors can you name? How many sports figures? How many singers? Hundreds? Thousands? Now, how many policemen can you name? How can they stand all that glory? Moving on: Name a political prisoner in the US. No fair including guys like Mumia who parenthetically happened to kill a few policemen. Name a person held in US prisons who is there charged for political views only, without any accompanying criminal charge. Putz.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Had you been living on Earth, and not en route across the light-years from distant Asshatia, you would have noticed that in 2006 the incumbent party was thrown out of office for levels of corruption remarkably below that of most every other country on the planet. "Earmarks," disturbing as they are, nevertheless are not in fact illegal. There are indeed a very few countries with less corruption than the US, but they don’t make a damn thing or contribute a particle to human advancement. It's easy to referee a game that is not in motion! To say that corruption is rampant and unchecked is to swear on a stack of Bibles that you have no idea what you are talking about.
14. Fraudulent elections. Thank you, “American,” from the bottom of my heart, for saving this for last. The Miami Herald did a very, very in-depth study of the 2000 election in Florida. Here are the facts: Bush won the first mechanical count. Bush won the subsequent mechanical recount. That is all constitutional law required. But Bush then went on the win the third mechanical count. Bush then won the hand recount, where election officials read tea leaves and chicken entrails to determine a voter’s ‘intent.’ As far as ‘judicial selection’ goes, the Constitution requires that electors be present in Washington at a certain date. The Supreme Court merely told the Florida court that it is not allowed to continue to recount and recount and recount and recount until it gets the result they desire. The Supreme Court did NOT “select” Bush. They told Florida to have their electors on time. This is the essence of a lawful and orderly society. Tanks did not roll. Gunfire was not heard in the halls of the Congress, as they are no doubt in whatever little shithole you are writing from. I voted for Gore in 2000, to my everlasting shame, and I was immediately convinced that he had lost and was deeply embarrassed by the showboating. NIXON, evil EVIL Nixon conceded the 1960 election with far, far stronger case because he knew what was good for the country.
“American,” I went to some small trouble to show you that you will be better served returning to Kos and DU, realms where fact and logic – not to mention a wee bit of eduction – have never impeded the adulation due to a flimsy, pathetic rant like yours. You’re a little out of your league here, I think.
Also, you're a f**king jerk.
PS
Hey Rand!
Posted by Bill Whittle at December 13, 2007 01:00 AM
Many people hear or read something like “american’s” rant and think that because it is structured and literate there must be something to it. How many college students today, when presented with such nonsense, would read it and think that they are approaching the days of a Nazi state?
Lots.
Damn it! Lots of them would. Why? Because, like the 9/11 conspiracy “troofers,” no one bothers to call these people out. Thinking about this response took half again as long as actually typing it did: which is to say a few minutes. That is because I know how far from reality this diatribe is. These are things I think about every day, and likely, so do you. Realizing from scratch that his point was absurd, the specifics were easy.
We can no longer afford to let this anti-American garbage pass unchallenged. As a kind and secure people, we tend to let a lot of this go under the bridge, but this kind of crap gets more and more traction, and those days I think must come to an end for a while.
Now normally I do not employ personal ridicule, but I was writing in the heat of the moment and I thought it was no less than such a puerile attempt deserved. These people need to be challenged, factually defeated, thrashed, and mocked.
There was a time when common sense was prevalent enough that arguments this absurd would be laughed at on the street. I mean to return to those times, one self-righteous idiot at a time.
Welcome to the Eject! Eject! Eject! commenter community. Please read and understand the following:
1. This is not a public square. This is a dinner party on personal property. Good conversation is not only tolerated but celebrated here. But the host understands the difference between dissent and disrespect, even if you do not. Louts will be ignored until the bouncers can show them the door.
2. This is a voluntary online community. Your posting of any material, whether in comments or otherwise, grants to William A. Whittle, Aurora Aerospace, Inc. and their affiliates, a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use, sublicense, reproduce or incorporate into other material all or any portion of the material posted, for commercial or other use.
3. If a comment does find its way into a main page essay, print, or other media, every effort will be made to credit the individual making the comment. So chose your screen name accordingly, SLNTFRT33@yahoo.com!
Now let's see some distributed intelligence and basic human decency! Don't make me come down there every five minutes!
Comments
Hey Bill,
Glad to see there's some new stuff! Keep it coming.
"In the 'War of Ideas', Bill Whittle is the Tip of the Spear"---- some dude
Best,
MZ
Posted by: MikeZero | December 17, 2007 6:08 PM
Well, for what it is worth, I think it is a well deserved reply.
Posted by: pdwalker | December 17, 2007 6:37 PM
Remind me not to get on your bad side, Bill. I do not want to suffer the process of being rendered down to bones and flesh scraps by your caustic wit, as happened to the hapless "American". And I mean that in a good way ... 8^)
Just remember that "common sense" isn't, much to our collective chagrin. Keep whacking away with the machete of truth at the thick jungle vines of ignorance that sometimes seem to entangle America.
Posted by: George Rapp | December 17, 2007 7:06 PM
I think it is well and proper that criticisms of the US, such as this, be addressed rationally.
We do have to be careful, though, that we don't just reject criticisms out of hand. Criticisms are not necessarily wrong simply BECAUSE they are criticisms.
America isn't perfect. Perfection in government, in fact, is probably not even an attainable goal, either by us or by anyone else. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't give it our best shot. One of the things that has made America the great country it has become since its inception is that criticisms aren't (or shouldn't be) swept under the carpet. Rather, they are (or should be) publicly aired and addressed, and, only when found to be without merit should they be trashcanned. Most, if not all, of the beneficial changes to our system that have occurred over our history started out as criticisms of the system current at the time - identifications of issues that needed to be, and ultimately were, addressed properly.
If, when coming across a criticism of the United States, ones first impulse is simply to declare "Well, that's just WRONG. Because, y'know, this is AMERICA, you (insert epithet of your choosing here - communist, fascist, liberal, whatever)", without actually taking the time to consider the criticisms dispassionately, then America isn't being served. Because America isn't, in fact, perfect, and some criticisms are actually justified, and those criticisms that actually do have merit should be identified and dealt with rationally. Blindly accepting the US as unassailably perfect, as it is, right now, with no possibility that it could ever be any better because... well... it's perfect right now and you can't improve on perfection, is not only silly, it's also dangerous.
I know, I know, I must be a (communist\fascist\liberal\whatever).
Don't read the above and assume I have a problem with what you wrote. I don't. The points you were addressing deserved to be addressed in the manner in which you did.
But not all such criticisms are without merit, and broadly rejecting any and all, I think, turns what should be rational discourse into little more than American Boosterism. Boosterism has its place, but only when it doesn't end up blinding one to the problems America really does have.
Posted by: Scott | December 17, 2007 7:13 PM
Scott, I don't think you're a communist\fascist\liberal\whatever. Your point is, of course, sound. But to make the point you make seems to imply that somehow America is lacking in self-criticism. On the contrary: America is dying from relentless and unwarranted criticism that is so out of the realm of reason and measure that it is corroding the foundations of society.
I would never, ever want an American history that excluded slavery and the fate of the Indians. But ask a college kid today about American history, and most will tell you it is nothing more than slavery and the Indians.
That has to be fought tooth and nail. Because it is a lie.
Posted by: Bill Whittle | December 17, 2007 7:23 PM
I could swear this chunk of Liberal boilerplate looks familiar.... But thanks for taking the time to Fisk it. Maybe the next time I see it, I'll cut and paste you!
Posted by: Mauser | December 17, 2007 7:36 PM
Well said my friend.
We need to combat this asshattery when and where we find it.That, unfortunatly is every where and 24/7.
Just say no to socialism: vote conservative!
Posted by: unkawill | December 17, 2007 7:52 PM
That is great.
I urge you to read Inside the 9/11 "Truth" Movement.
Posted by: Moggy | December 17, 2007 7:53 PM
Oh. no, I am certainly not implying that America lacks self-criticism. As you say, we're practically wallowing in it.
I guess what I was trying to say is that I don't see American self-criticism as a bad thing. On the contrary, I see our ability to criticize ourselves as a large part of what has made our country so great. Good criticisms of the US make the US better, even if what they identify might be painful to realize. Anything that makes the US better is something to be embraced, not rejected.
Now, that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of chaff in with the wheat. Our educational system seems to be failing us because it appears to be impairing our ability to separate the two. But that's not a problem with the criticisms themselves - that's a problem with our ability to instill the skill of critical thinking in our populace. In other words, it's not the chaff that's the problem - there's always LOTS of chaff, and there always will be - it's the machinery we are building for separating it from the wheat that appears to need some work.
I hear you concerning college kids thinking it's ALL about slavery and whatnot. And they're both right and wrong. They're right that slavery was a stain on an otherwise well made piece of cloth. A shameful period of our history that should not be forgotten so it cannot be repeated. And WE did it. But... What they seem to forget (or at least, ignore) is that we also got RID of slavery. We did the wrong thing at first - the REALLY wrong thing - but we also did the right thing in the end. And that should also not be forgotten, because it's also an important side of that coin.
Without self-criticism, the second part would not have occurred. That was wheat.
So, my point was that it isn't the seemingly endless criticisms of the US that are a problem. Me, I actually consider them a sign of health. Not a lot of self-criticism went on in the Soviet Union, Nazi German, Fascist Italy, or is occurring in North Korea, Iran, and so on, today. I prefer our way, chaff and all. The inability to discriminate between what is real and what isn't, however, is a serious issue. THAT'S the problem that actually needs addressing.
Posted by: Scott | December 17, 2007 7:56 PM
Scott,
I would agree that not all criticisms should be rejected out of hand. I have many criticisms of our current administration. The difference is that I believe in the innate goodness of the principles upon which this nation was founded. I believe in the self-correcting nature of an open society.
If you review American's points, s/he is not questioning any specific policy or action but rather the very composition and nature of our American Idea.
Since these tropes are usually accompanied with "ChimpyMcHilterBurton and his keeper Cheney"; when I hear the former I tend to assume the later. Hence my branding muirgeo as a troll on the prior thread.
Posted by: daddyquatro | December 17, 2007 8:14 PM
mmm, creme brulee, pumpkin custard with scotch tinged whipped cream, tiramisu, napoleon...
Oh, hell, bust out the garlic and pumpernickel. And I'd like a tall glass of vinegar too please.
Num!
Posted by: Otto Gass | December 17, 2007 8:15 PM
Great post, Bill. Though, on a more esoteric note, I must really applaud you for the use of "commenter" rather than "commentator." I think the latter is a horribly awkward construction. A "commenter" is one who comments. The contrived word "commentator" is too much like "common tater" and should invoke thoughts of Idaho spuds. And speaking the part (instead of writing) as a television anchor does not absolve oneself of this constraint. "Commenter" is the proper term. Those boobs at Oxford and Cambridge be damned. My other peeve is people who say "orientate" when they mean to say "orient." Maybe it's the tragic influence of Eddie Murphy's prison character who added -ate and -ize to nouns in order to make them verbs. Actually that was pretty funny stuff - but people have forgotten the joke and now it's accepted??!! Really bothers me that it's now mainstream English. Sorry for the rant, but it's a personal crusade.
Cheers, keep up the good work
Posted by: Fred Breitfelder | December 17, 2007 8:24 PM
Scott,
Yes slavery was a stain upon the flag, as was Jim Crow, as was Mei Li, as was Abu Ghraib.
But in each case, these actions were in contradiction to our founding principles and we paid the price to correct them. The type of thought expressed by "American" does not question actions but the very building blocks of a free society. You may question and ask me to defend my actions but don't start bad mouthing my core beliefs or we're going 'round and 'round.
Posted by: daddyquatro | December 17, 2007 8:49 PM
What gives me a forced grin every time about american's brand of sweeping criticism is its lack of any specific examples, as if to indicate that the evidence is so obvious as to not need introduction. What grates me even more about is that I indeed need no introduction to the examples they're referring because they're the same mantras invoked every time. When I read "disdain for the importance of human rights" I heard "Patriot Act"; "controlled mass media" - Fox news; "disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts" - Ward Churchill and Michael Moore; "rampant cronyism" - Halliburton; "fraudulent elections" - Bush v. Gore. It's no longer necessary for these numbskulls to cite examples, because they're still using the same examples they've been citing for years, examples that have been soundly defeated ad nauseum by logic and the benefit of hindsight now that we're well away from most of them. But clearly american and his ilk haven't stopped to consider the counter-arguments even once, and haven't even noticed how isolated their examples of impending doom have shown themselves to be. That fundamentally reactionary aspect of their worldview needs to be addressed in detail, because they have no ideas of their own but instead just counter-ideas. Our impressionable youth (and our impressionable middle-aged and elderly too) could use to realize that these people aren't visionaries or innovators, just people who need something to bitch about.
That said, I agree with Scott that criticism and vigilance are essential to ensure the righteousness of our actions and policies, but I don't think Bill or his average reader disagrees with that one bit. We just hate to see the same blind criticism over and over, especially arrogantly malformed criticism that should have run out of breath somewhere between being beaten soundly in reasonable argument and then beaten as a dead horse. If you're going to attack my positions, at least attack them with arguments of roughly equal value, not these identity-politics attacks claiming that my beloved country is the same as Nazi Germany.
Anyways, thank you Bill for illustrating so nicely that a structured, literate argument is not necessarily a well-reasoned one. Being a college student myself, I see too many people around me duped into granting merit to an argument for the wrong reasons. In this case, it's the romantic promise that siding with american makes you some kind of freedom fighter like the Founding Fathers or French resistance or what have you, espousing the TRUTH against TYRANNY and FASCISM and all that. But there are too many other cases like this one floating around these days.
Posted by: Marine Roger | December 17, 2007 9:25 PM
Hi, daddyquatro,
I have no issue with your points. Please note that I was not defending the author (or plagiarizer, as the case may be) of the text that Bill was responding to. I find them just as idiotic as you do.
But the post and its response brought the issues that I was writing about to mind. Simply that criticizing the American system is not, in itself, a bad thing. It is fine - indeed, admirable - to defend the American system. But it is just as important not to do so blindly and without question. It is essential that we develop the ability of critical thinking, and while we must apply that method to our detractors, we must ALSO apply it precisely to what we hold dear. That way we insure that our system really is the best that we can make it.
Posted by: Scott | December 17, 2007 9:35 PM
Scott-
You rightly say that slavery was a bad thing. What you fail is that it STILL exists in many areas of the world. The US gave it up long before it was perceived as the correct action on the world stage.
You say:
"Good criticisms of the US make the US better, ..."
True, true. The issue that I believe Bill and others here have is not that there are criticisms but the sheer volume of the criticisms become loud noise hiding the basic goodness of this society. Criticism for criticism sake is narcissism of the worst sort.
Some brilliant posts ago, Bill said that we need to hold the plainly stupid and deranged up to the light and laugh at them. I agree.
So, to american:
Har, har, de-har! You funny, stupid man!
Posted by: Robohobo | December 17, 2007 9:39 PM
"The issue that I believe Bill and others here have is not that there are criticisms but the sheer volume of the criticisms become loud noise hiding the basic goodness of this society."
That volume will only impact those people too lazy, unconcerned, or downright stupid, to apply any reason to it. And that is nothing new.
The human race has always been awash in ignorance, gullibility, and stupidity. That volume of idiocy has always been there. Arguing directly with it might be personally satisfying to some degree or another, but ultimately is like yelling at the ocean to stop sending you waves. Go ahead and yell till you're hoarse. Surf's still up!
You can't (usefully) directly confront stupidity, because it's too stupid to understand the argument. At best it will acknowledge that you said... something, I guess... and then turn around and repeat the same thing it said before, because that's all it has the capacity to know. It's been that way forever, and it's not likely to change anytime soon. There's just as many people on the left hand side of the bell curve as on the right.
What CAN change is the educational systems ability to instill better rational thinking skills in people. It won't work for everyone (i.e., the bell-lefties), but it certainly can't hurt.
Posted by: Scott | December 17, 2007 10:05 PM
Hi, Scott,
Good point. We should be ready and able to defend our founding principles through critical thinking.
One quibble.
"Simply that criticizing the American system is not, in itself, a bad thing."
"System" is too nebulous a word for me to know exactly what you meant (but then I haven't been too specific either.)
I would submit that creatures like "American" who sling such a broad brush are indeed committing a "bad thing". To indict our society at every level requires either a complete ignorance of history, "willful suspension of disbelief", or outright malice. For too long we have given our opposition the benefit of the doubt. We have assumed that the are merely misguided or misinformed. Hence the use of the "cluebat".
But when the majority leader of the Senate, with troops in the field, proclaims to the world that we have lost the war I can no longer grant the benefit of the doubt. Those are not the words of a dissenting patriot. Those are the words of a soul-less partisan.
Words have meaning and the world is listening.
Posted by: daddyquatro | December 17, 2007 10:30 PM
A good deal of what some brand "criticism" is merely the standard diatribe of those so awash in leftist "intellectualism" that they allow nothing contrary to their "knowledge" past their paradigm filters and into their seemingly hard-wired thought processes.
I fear not criticism, when soundly reasoned, factually based, and constructively offered. As in the properly applied Scientific Method, it serves to improve the results for all.
But far too many, for far too long, have repeated the bilge posted by "american" with little or no opposition. Any lie, told often enough and not resisted, can eventually become believed by those unwilling or too lazy to apply whatever critical thinking they may have picked up along the way.
Frankly, I don't classify the rant of "american" as criticism in any positive sense of the word. It is simply repetition of the "world view" constructed by the left to justify their march toward the cliffs of their socialist utopia enforced by the very methods they so "fear" from any who would oppose them. Their projection of their own tendancies onto their opponents is a subtle trap they do not recognize. A mirror can be most unforgiving. The light of truth most illuminating.
Excellent post, Mr. Whittle. My most gracious thanks!
Posted by: Paul A. | December 17, 2007 10:46 PM
"Second, a “scapegoat” is used to focus the rage of a group or individual on another to make up for slights and humiliations. It is the refuge of a loser… such as humiliated Germany in the 20’s and 30’s."
Looks like I'll be looking for a new job soon.
Let's see here now,..checking through the employment section,..what can an unskilled ex-scapegoat be qualified for?
h-hmn...let's see...Serpent Gate Attendant...Dung Gate Operator...
Ooo!
This one looks exciting and adventurous,..Dragon Slayer,"must supply your own shield and sword"
What do ya think Doug?
Do ya wanna challenge yourself or settle for a regular 9 to 5 routine.
(Tapping forehead with finger).. think...think...
Posted by: Dougman | December 18, 2007 12:00 AM
OK . I'll bite. Does anyone disagree with the following.
"If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship."
Just looking at the listed 14 "threads" I'd say indeed these are common to the methods of despots who wish to squelch democracy.
Any good scholars of history here? I'd ask what were the first signs that should have made it obvious to the average German in the early 1930's that they were on the road to hell?
I really don't know the history well enough but I do know of a book by Milton Mayer, "They Thought They Were Free" which tells the first hand storys of the incremental changes that no one thought much about that ultimately led to the Hell that the Nazis brought forth with their willing population.
Posted by: muirgeo | December 18, 2007 12:37 AM
"If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship."
I agree.
If we look at history we can find just about all the evidence we need to enlighten mankind to an understanding of all Truth.
A foundation, or Firmament if you will.
Next level ready to be razed to really bring it into blurred focus.
The power itself is not to be feared, but the Heart and Hand that does.
Posted by: Dougman | December 18, 2007 1:09 AM
muirgeo
"If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship."
I don't see that line here or on Transterrestrial Musings. Perhaps you know more than I, American.
Could you provide a link?
I'm on vacation. This should be fun.
Posted by: daddyquatro | December 18, 2007 1:12 AM
This -"but the Heart and Hand that does" should read-"but the Heart of the Hand that holds it does."
Okay, if I take the blame for that am I a loser or ...what?
I'm really confused now.
Posted by: Dougman | December 18, 2007 1:13 AM
Vacation!
What the hell is that?
I put in for my forty hours pay and the IRS took it all.
The bastards. A fatherless child, answerable to no One I tell ya.
Posted by: Dougman | December 18, 2007 1:28 AM
OK, I will try one more time. My prevoius attempt to comment did not make it and now, after some thought, I think it was written in such a way that sarcasm there could be misconstrued. If that was the impression, my apologies, Bill.
But I still would like to point out the source of the "14 points": Umberto Eco, an Italian author. He was not writing specifically about the US, although I beleive he is pretty far left in his views, he was trying to make a general observation. And of course, his words are being constantly applied by the Left to the US - too often without even knowing who wrote them. Not to mention the sheer madness of such comparison... but Bill has already written on that.
Posted by: LadderLogic | December 18, 2007 4:46 AM
The so-called "narrative" as presented by "american" has become orthodoxy for the hard left. Bill takes it apart point-for-point, but fails to address the agenda behind the ideology. The left is attempting a revolution of historic proportions. We've seen this pattern before.
Both Stalin and Mao understood that tradition was the main impediment to revolution. The cultural pillars of their respective societies had to be denounced, delegitimized, and then destroyed. Only then could a new socialist order take root on denuded soil.
Religion was the first target. Stalin had priests executed and churches razed. Mao likewise. In both cases the clergy were denounced as enemies of the state. Is there any wonder why social progressives in America have such antipathy toward religion?
The second step was a frontal assault against private property and the class that owned it. Kulaks were sent to the gulags. Chinese landowners were publicly humiliated and branded parasites. Is there any wonder why secular progressives exhibit such a hatred for capitalism?
The intellectual foundations of both societies then fell under assault by party hacks. Mao ordered every trace of Confucian thought eradicated from Chinese society. Stalin crushed dissent through massive purges at all levels of society. Public discourse was truncated. People learned to speak in the approved language of party ideology. Is there any wonder why secular progressives erect speech codes and publicly assault those with whom they disagree?
Only the rule of law, guaranteed by a single document, the US Constituion, separates America from the rest of the world. It's a slender line, indeed. Is it any wonder why the enemies of freedom prefer a so-called "living constitution"?
Yet today's secular progressives have taken their movement to levels even George Orwell could not foresee. Add to the mix race, gender and sexual preference. The new enemy has been identified by the left as white, male, and heterosexual. Based on identity politics, secular progressives have recruited a brand new constituency of useful idiots. It takes only a willing media to keep the bonfires of resentment stoked for the coming revolution.
We know the endgame. Gradual collectivism will lead to dictatorship. Look to Europe where an unelected bureaucracy is even now taking the final steps to guarantee their bloodless coup d'etat.
Humanity is slow to learn the lessons of history. Thus must we suffer continuous cycles of repression and revoltion. The fight between tyranny and freedom is very real and ongoing.
God save the Republic!
Posted by: Mark William Paules | December 18, 2007 6:05 AM
Hey, first I 'd like to thank Bill for coming to my defense. I understand he likely in no way is defending my position but at least he has not questioned my intent. If you really don't want to hear the rants of some one who, aside from his own selfish interest, looks at everything through the lens with main consideration for his 2 daughters future then I'll be glad to leave. If you want to hear good challenging philosophical debates that challenge your deeply held positions I'm here to do that as well as to be challenged. Likewise I'm here to have my deepest beliefs challenged I have no great fear of being wrong. If you want to question my patriotism...I'm about 5" 8" 200# and never been in much of a fight.... you'll likely kick my arse but that'll I'll take t the street for. I may loose but you'll see I wasn't kidding. This country's the best damm thing going and I only see myself fighting for it.
Question my assumptions, question my accuracy but don't question my intent. If your arguments and positions are superior they should stand on their own with out need for personal attacks. And by personal I MEAN personal. If you call Gore or Clinton something foul I don't consider it personal.
Ultimately this is Bill's place and I respect his letting me participate. He's a great writer and philosopher much as I often disagree. I love to read his stuff. But I will choose not to interact with anyone here who I don't think I could sit down with and debate face to face over good beer shouting and getting angry but still getting along.
If I truly thought my country was possibly heading in the direction of fascism... wouldn't you consider me a coward for not speaking out.
And one more thing for starters.... I completely agree that authoritarianism can occur from the left or the right.
I mean 10 years age the right was dead certain we were on that path.
So when I suggest I actually am concerned myself please think how you thought 10 years ago.
If you're gonna call me wacked for my concerns your gonna have to defend the same concerns yoouur side expressed with he Clinton regime.... which we on the left thought was paranoia.
So again I ask how do we recognize the steps that lead to an Orwellian society.
I'd suggest any example you can givve from the Clinton era I can give 2 or 3 from the modern day.
Posted by: muirgeo | December 18, 2007 7:41 AM
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 12/18/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Posted by: David M | December 18, 2007 10:10 AM
Bill,
Thanks for taking the time to put this poor misguided soul on the right road. Instead of taking him by the hand, you booted him in the ass. Good choice. That’s why I keep you around. Whenever I want to make a strong point and can’t find the words, I drag out one of your well reasoned arguments and say, “see, this is what I mean”. Thanks again.
Berge
Posted by: Berge | December 18, 2007 10:14 AM
That is great.
Posted by: Firmalar | December 18, 2007 11:02 AM
"Take sides.
Neutrality helps the oppressors. Never the victims.
Silence encourages the tormentor. Never the tormented." I don't know who to attribute this to, but I think it fits. Never, Never, Never, quit.
Posted by: Skobob | December 18, 2007 11:16 AM
It's possible that the next president could be Hillary Clinton.
Are you all OK with her having unlimited access to your e-mails or phone conversations or your phone logs. Are you OK with her claiming immunity for all her actions claiming they are "top secret"? Will you be comfortable knowing in theory she can claim anyone an enemy combatant and send them off to a rendition facility? Would you be comfortable with her dis-banding Blackwater and setting up contracts with a new para-military security force of her choosing?
Seriously ask yourselves these questions. I will demand of the new president to respect the FISA laws, to stop torture and to open up the government to the light of day. I won't make excuses in support of her for what are unconstitutional over-reaches of power.
Posted by: muirgeo | December 18, 2007 12:27 PM
Hi,
Gag gift for environmentalists: www.unclegeorge4motherearth.com
There's one in every family....
That environmentalist whacko at the family Christmas gathering, who babbles about the horrors of Global Warming to come, quoting Algore on dead polar bears, and flooded cities.
The "scientific consensus" has these a**holes terrified.
They constantly remind the rest of us how we must sacrifice to prevent the coming Apocalypse.
They're hard to shop for, aren't they?
Well, now you can kill two birds with one eco-friendly stone: Uncle George's Amazing Earth SaversTM
Methane is 20 times more powerful as a Greenhouse Gas than Carbon Dioxide....Where is it coming from?
Environmental A**holes are a known source of methane.
So plug those environmental a**holes on your Christmas list.
Earth SaversTM come in a variety of sizes, from Insect (termites emit more methane than any other source) to Algore (a supersized environmental a**hole).
Get one for every environmental a**hole in your life!
www.unclegeorge4motherearth.com
Gaia will love you for it !
Love,
Uncle George
unclegeorge@unclegeorge4motherearth.com
Posted by: Uncle George | December 18, 2007 1:05 PM
Bill,
Thought you and your readers might enjoy this.
Gag gift for environmentalists: www.unclegeorge4motherearth.com
There's one in every family....
That environmentalist whacko at the family Christmas gathering, who babbles about the horrors of Global Warming to come, quoting Algore on dead polar bears, and flooded cities.
The "scientific consensus" has these a**holes terrified.
They constantly remind the rest of us how we must sacrifice to prevent the coming Apocalypse.
They're hard to shop for, aren't they?
Well, now you can kill two birds with one eco-friendly stone: Uncle George's Amazing Earth SaversTM
Methane is 20 times more powerful as a Greenhouse Gas than Carbon Dioxide....Where is it coming from?
Environmental A**holes are a known source of methane.
So plug those environmental a**holes on your Christmas list.
Earth SaversTM come in a variety of sizes, from Insect (termites emit more methane than any other source) to Algore (a supersized environmental a**hole).
Get one for every environmental a**hole in your life!
www.unclegeorge4motherearth.com
Gaia will love you for it !
Love,
Uncle George
unclegeorge@unclegeorge4motherearth.com
Posted by: Uncle George | December 18, 2007 1:05 PM
Go Bill,
To the point as always.
Posted by: Gerald | December 18, 2007 1:07 PM
The bane of blogs has to be unsubstantiated assertions. Assuming what is broadcast on CNN or Fox News are all the facts and nothing but the facts is a dangerous proposition. I have faith FISA laws are complied with, because there is no good reason to violate them. Torture, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Some things bleeding hearts call torture barely meet the standard of fraternity initiation or what I went through in Air Force survival school resistance training. So to make the assertion that the president would knowingly violate the law or over reach what are substantial constitutional excersises of power and call them excessive can only be unsubstantiated because there is no way to know all of the facts of an issue based on agenda driven 30 second sound bites. To do so is to ascribe to yourself clairvoiant powers not seen since Merlin in Camelot.
Posted by: skobob | December 18, 2007 1:29 PM
Part of the problem is that some of the things mentioned are things that can be exploited in order to turn a free and open society into a dictatorship, but are also necessary for a healthy society.
National identity? It's what elevated civilizations from the band-and-tribe level: the extension of the bonds of identity and loyalty that otherwise would be reserved for family to an identity as a citizen of X. From that idea comes ideals of service (from firefighter to military member) and respect for the law of the land- rather than exploitation of fellow citizens for personal or family gain, which is what happens routinely in societies where blood ties are stronger.
Respect for the military? Necessary to keep it staffed and funded, necessary for national defense. All nations that lack it are either relying on a nation that has it for their defense, or are near-anarchies where a national military doesn't exist because everyone with any clout has their own private "army".
Identification of enemies? Necessary for anyone who expects to survive- merely because threats have been manufactured to suit someone's ends before does not mean that threats do not exist.
Self-criticism is necessary and good, yes, but it needs to go along with recognition of and pride in what's good and right. Otherwise, it doesn't get preserved, modeled, and repeated.
Posted by: LabRat | December 18, 2007 4:55 PM
Hey, Bill;
Thought you'd appreciate knowing the origin of "american"s little rant. It's not like he wrote it himself, after all - - plagiarized it chapter and verse from here:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2
There are tens of thousands of numbnutzes on the web that have been waving this tripe around as some kind of manifesto. It's origin is often attributed to "a professor of sociology" or some other discipline, but of course, no school is ever mentioned.
Truth is, Mr. Britt is apparently a one-shot author of an anti-right "political thriller" from well before Bush's time. And may well be a pseudonym, as the spelling of his first name varies depending on the citation.
Keep up the good work, mi amigo!
-Grunthos the Flatulent, Kleptonyminous webizen
Posted by: Grunthos | December 18, 2007 5:08 PM
I was attempting to verify a quote by Jefferson when I found a site now linked here to my name. It consists of 28 glorious pages of quotes by the luminaries of western civilization on the nature of liberty. I offer a 100% guarantee that you will bookmark this site. If I could offer but one aphorism on a par with any of these quotes, my life would be complete. Yes, it's that good. Enjoy.
Posted by: Mark William Paules | December 18, 2007 5:15 PM
[THIS 20 MINUTE LONG CUT-AND-PASTE ORATION HAS BEEN DELETED DUE TO A TOTAL LACK OF COMPREHENSIBILITY]
Posted by: Just imagine the poetic justice the gods employed here:::Some indecent Texas redneck, proud that all | December 18, 2007 5:43 PM
Quick, ma. The Flit!
Posted by: daddyquatro | December 18, 2007 6:18 PM
Someone's off their meds. Major cleanup needed in the comments aisle.
Posted by: bluebird | December 18, 2007 6:22 PM
Cleanup on aisle three.
Posted by: Evil Otto | December 18, 2007 6:46 PM
You know, deletion of merely a part of an expletive still counts as an undeleted expletive so long as it can still be identified as such in context. Shirley, with your prehensile, serpentine, yet limply phallic abilities at commentary, you can contrive—like so much of the disinformation you grind out—a proper adjective to describe a man with views you do not share, and whom you completely despise for being more informed—even if incorrectly—than you. Take two aspirin and don’t call me “a f**king jerk” in the morning…Shirley.
Posted by: Acemantura | December 18, 2007 6:58 PM
I must admit that american's comments contained a slight amount of truth so that my first read through allowed for some of the regimes to gain traction. Thankfully Bill's comments revealed them to be nothing but Koolaid flavored sewage.
Bill, many thanks for removing the scales from my eyes...again!
Posted by: Deano | December 18, 2007 8:16 PM
Well, it's hard to concentrate even after skimming though about a third of that mess of rectal excretion posted at 5:43 PM, but I'm going to try.
muirgeo - way, way above here, you "asked" some questions which were based on some unfounded assumptions.
"It's possible that the next president could be Hillary Clinton."
This part is Ok. You have to have a premise for a "thought experiment", and this one is as good a base to work from as any.
"Are you all OK with her having unlimited access to your e-mails or phone conversations or your phone logs."
Here you have made an untrue implication. Namely, that the current administration has the same access. Bush directed the NSA to tap phone calls going outside the country to phone numbers associated with known or suspected terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, and has been upheld by FISA judges, as well as being OK'd by the Congress when it was put in place. This part of it is never acknowledged by the people taking their shots at the Bush administration, but it is vitally important to the issue (I am far less familiar with anything of the sort related to Email, but I don't believe there is anything granting unrestricted access to it). Of course I would have a problem with the Government having unlimited access to my phone and Email conversations, but that's not the issue, and that's why people don't take questions like that one seriously.
In fact, I would consider it highly possible that many people who get angry when faced with a question like that one don't even understand quite why they are angry. It just rankles in the back of the mind, because the person knows that it's basis is wrong.
"Are you OK with her claiming immunity for all her actions claiming they are "top secret"?
All such claims still come under review by their various controlling entities. If there were an issue which they believed such a claim constituted an abuse of power, the President could be impeached, but I have yet to hear one credible claim of a specific nature which would constitute an impeachable offense.
"Will you be comfortable knowing in theory she can claim anyone an enemy combatant and send them off to a rendition facility?"
The implication here is not only that the current administration does such things, but that the Military fully cooperates with it. You might believe that the Military is full of sadistic SOBs who would salivate at the idea of having someone who has achieved "nonentity" status, so they can experiment on them any way they please, but if so, I would suggest getting to know more actual soldiers. If some random yutz who annoyed the President were plunked down in some facility after being declared an "enemy combatant", the people there would soon figure out that he wasn't like the others, and questions would start being raised.
"Would you be comfortable with her dis-banding Blackwater and setting up contracts with a new para-military security force of her choosing?"
How is she supposed to "disband" Blackwater? They aren't a Governmental entity. Besides, the President doesn't unilaterally make contracts with Private Sector groups. That still has to go through Congress. As far as who they contract with, I could give two hoots in hell who it was as long as they can do the job, and do it well. Can you name another private security group who can?
Now, to go back to your questions, as asked: I would hate all but the last one, but if she were to do any of those, then that would be doing things that the current administration does not, so why do you think these questions are pertinent?
Posted by: WayneB | December 18, 2007 9:37 PM
It was too bad you had to begin this with a snark at Velikovsky, someone a significant number of your readers never heard of. The obvious lunacy was not on his. It was in his detractors disreputable efforts, which included claiming he said things he never said (early on), and later plagiarism.
I have a great deal of respect for you Bill, but if you're with Sagan on this, I don't think you know to what lengths he and a few allies went to to try to discredit him. I always figured it was establishment science's attempt to keep renewed critical interest in the Bible from springing up. It was only 25 years since the Scopes Monkey trial when the book (viewed by some scientists as a Biblical apologia).
Now you'll probably think of me as lunatic too. That's too bad. But I will not stand silent when I see unearned vilification aimed at a courageous challenger (now dead) of consensus thinking even when that slight appears as an off-hand remark as you just did.
There were over a dozen predictions Dr. Velikovsky made in 1946 about what we'd find in space. Every single one was found to be right. He was so right that had to resort to the tired saw that a band of monkeys would eventually compose all of Shakespeare's works. But the monkeys would have had a whole lot garbage too. And even had there was one or two wrong, -- and if there was, you can bet they'd have hollered it from the rafters (crickets chirping) -- the other 90% would be some tremendous track record.
The most recent vindication came when the high content of sulfuric acid and "unexpectedly" high temperatures in Venus's atmosphere was discovered. In the 1950's everyone was saying it was predominantly CO2 and a green-house effect. The morons on the Left on still going on about a run-away greenhouse effect on Venus as if to warn us of what's in store for us on Earth. But they have other agendas, so why should they change their standing on stupidity when so many still believe it?
Consensus science in 1950 and 1976 were the fore-runners of our contemporary consensus science. In each case they had agendas of which they dared not speak. In each instance their remonstrations have earned well-connected science spokesmen a high level of skepticism from you, me, and every other true skeptic.
Posted by: Pascal Fervor | December 18, 2007 10:29 PM
My understanding of WORLDS IN COLLISION is that Velikovsky supposes that what today is the planet Venus is actually a comet that was ejected from Jupiter, roamed the solar system, passed close enough to the Earth to stop the planets rotation long enough to explain the Sun standing still in the sky as outlined in the Book of Joshua, not to mention making repeated vists to the Earth's vicinity trailing "hydrocarbons" that fell to the Earth as Manna before taking up its current position.
If that's not worthy of a snark then I do not know what is. Sagan showed that the energy required to eject a body the size of Venus from Jupiter was more than enough to vaporize such an object, and his analysis of what would happen to the Earth should it's rotation be arrested by a nearby object (itsself an impossiblity) was hilarious.
If those were not Velikovsky's claims, then provide me a link to his work and if as you say his work has been substantiated without serious challenge I will issue a humble retraction.
Posted by: Bill Whittle | December 18, 2007 10:50 PM
Muirgeo,
I don't accept your premise that we are "heading in the direction of fascism" More like headed in the direction of socialism.
And....
What WayneB said.
Wow, Bill.
I had no idea you spoke moonbat.
Posted by: daddyquatro | December 18, 2007 11:11 PM
I'm very sorry for the repost. Writing is not the essence of my day job. I was hoping to get the corrections in before you read the first one.
Thanks for your response.
He never said Venus was a comet, but a protoplanet prior to it winding up where it is.
Velikovsky anticipated the physical forces problem in his book when he said there may be other forces that we cannot observe today (i.e., when planetary bodies come close to one another) because we don't have that kind of activity going on now.
I'm an engineer. Much of what I can accomplish with new technologies is only found after the underlying science is observed so the new problems that come with it can be studied. Empiricism is essential to getting my job done. When I can't see the problem, and I can't experiment and observe the results, I am useless. As are we all. Without us today seeing what happened then we can't quantify it. We are reduced to presuming that ancient observers were all dreaming the same dream.
See, the key to Worlds in Collision was in Velikovsky asking the question not "HOW the things reported in the Bible happened," but "could the reports of what was observed be true?" And, so, he searched for other legends that had similar reports. And he found them and compared and contrasted them.
For instance, if there was long day on one part of the earth, there had to be a long night in another hemisphere. He found it. Were they contemporaneous? They could have been.
Look Bill. Religiously, everybody knows I am agnostic. But I am no Biblical skeptic per se. I have seen too many instances where what has been reported in the Bible made no sense once, but then it only took time for us to find how it made sense. The are loads of apologists who've done this as I'm sure you know. But I don't put myself out as better than ancient man because I have so much history that they didn't. If they saw something, I have to believe that their legends carry the message about some truth they witnessed, so I shouldn't be too quick to dismiss them.
I don't even know HOW Velikovsky's thesis led him to his uncanny predictions and accuracy. He was simply right in them.
In fact, I have often joked that maybe he was kidnapped by aliens and taken into the future so he then knew what science would find out in a few years. And when he came back, he concocted Worlds in Collision so he had something on which to hang his predictions since nobody would believe he was a time traveler.
I tell you, I don't know HOW he did it Bill. I only know he was right in his predictions. And I also know that establishment science has a problem with the Bible having any credibility. That should be enough -- especially given the crap establishment science will say to gain and keep its grants today -- to grant the late Dr. Velikovsky a bit more slack.
Posted by: Pascal Fervor | December 18, 2007 11:25 PM
"Are you all OK with her having unlimited access to your e-mails or phone conversations or your phone logs."
Here you have made an untrue implication.
Have I? You sure?
The National Security Letter provision of the Patriot Act radically expanded the FBI's authority to demand personal records like Web site visits and e-mail addresses without prior court approval. The provision also allows the FBI to forbid or "gag" anyone who receives an NSL from telling anyone about the record demand.
Posted by: muirgeo | December 18, 2007 11:38 PM
Greetings Bill,
Long time listener, first time caller (I've always wanted to say that).
Great article. It reminded me of a six month long battle I had with a left-wing moonbat on a news blog here in Aus. This guy was posting material of similar quality to 'American's' on literally a daily basis. And I have to say that this guy could WRITE. Seriously, the guy was a total dickhead but eloquent does not begin to describe his writing style. Of course as you have already observed the problem with people like this is that because what they write is structured and SOUNDS intelligent then there are a lot of easily led drones out there who naturally assume that they ARE intelligent. "Hey! Him use biggum words and correct punctuation. Him must be smart". But once you got through his extravagent prose what he was peddling was pure BS and one day I just decided that I had had enough.
The battle was long and hard my friends. Post and counter post flew like bullets over our respective idealogical trenches. I have to admit that I got a tad obsessed. I even started researching and composing my posts during work hours which didn't go down too well with my boss of the time.
After six months I had finally reached a point where I was mentally exhausted and was about to chuck it all in. However my learned opponent suddenly announced that he was 'retiring' from the blog in question. Coincidence? Hmmmmmmm.
After basking in the inital glow of victory I experienced a growing self-disgust at how close I had come to quitting and realised that I had actually learned one important lesson from this admittedly minor life experience.
We cannot let the left-wing haters win simply because they have more stamina...or can yell louder. You have to shout your message from the rooftops even when it is being drowned out by the incessant mewling of the craven.
Ok, starting to sound like a bit of a tool myself now. Cheers again, Bill. Love your work.
Posted by: James of Brisbane / Australia | December 19, 2007 1:48 AM
Totally off topic via Instapundit:
WHEN TERRORISTS GET TO THE AFTERLIFE, THEY'LL FIND THAT NONE OF THEIR 72 WOMEN ARE STILL VIRGINS.
Why? Because of Fred Thompson.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/12/new_fred_thompson_video_kill_p.php
If he's got the guts to run this in Iowa and New Hampshire, he's got my vote . . . .
posted at 11:04 PM by Glenn Reynolds Permalink
Posted by: Don | December 19, 2007 5:35 AM
"The National Security Letter provision of the Patriot Act radically expanded the FBI's authority to demand personal records like Web site visits and e-mail addresses without prior court approval. The provision also allows the FBI to forbid or "gag" anyone who receives an NSL from telling anyone about the record demand.
"
OK, I'm going to need the relevant text here, because I seriously think you're reading WAY too much into these things.
What about the phone tapping? I notice you didn't address that.
Posted by: WayneB | December 19, 2007 6:17 AM
Hi all!
Satisfyingly well-played, Bill! -- Thank you for that!
Folks: I'm in general abstract agreement with the ideas expressed here about the benefits of openness to criticism and honest national self-assessment. That's all well and good. I have exceedingly little patience, however, for mean-spirited criticism that is offered without any genuine attempt at suggesting potentially helpful, feasible, practical solutions. That, it seems to me, is pretty clearly the nature of the cut-and-paste job Bill was responding to. Far from being a kind offer to help us poor dumb country hill folk out, it comes across as a transparently disingenuous tirade, whose sole purpose, it seems to me, is to disparage, demean, and -- most importantly -- demoralize. The apparent intended effect is far more revealing to me than the content of the message itself, as Mark William Paules already pointed out with characteristic eloquence. A sharp fellow named Bill had something to say about this too:
That passage is so spot-on it still gives me chills every time I re-read it. We'd be wise to heed its warning...
(Cheers all! It's a privilege, as always, to enjoy such fine company.)
Posted by: an unrepentant kulak | December 19, 2007 9:37 AM
I've read all of Velikovsky's books through 1977. They are facinating reading. (My favorite is "Oedipus and Akhnaton".) But, there is a reason that his conjectures about astronomy, physics, and chemistry have ended up on the ash heap of history. The anthropology might be a different matter; I don't really know -- it's not important to me. If you're looking for a summary of why it's on the ash heap, you could read "Scientists Confront Velikovsky"; $4 used in paperback from Amazon. I read it after reading all of Velikovsky, and it seem to me a fair assessment of his conjectures. If you have the stomach for it, you can also read "Scientists Confront Who Scientists Confront Velikovsky", I kid you not; $70 used from Amazon. (BTW, his third book, "Earth In Upheaval", was his reponse to the lack of acceptance of his ideas by the physical science community; and it didn't help.)
Posted by: qwer | December 19, 2007 11:35 AM
Wayne,
First do you understand the basic details of the Military Commissions Act?
Are you OK leaving it as is when (if) Hillary becomes president?
Finally, Bush went to the big telecommunication companies and asked , WITH OUT a court order for them to turn over their records. No oversight... so I DON'T KNOW nor do you but they could be listening, logging, reviewing and reading our emails, faxes,and phone calls.
Are you OK with this.. Will you be OK with it if Hillary has the same access?
I'm not OK with it from any president.
It's dead wrong and there is no defense to it.
So where does the message of America go from delusion to actually pointing out AT LEAST the possibility of a slow creep towards fascism.
Again, anyone her know when the Germans crossed that line?
The pice for freedom and liberty is vigilance.... eternal vigilance. When they cross the line on these civil liberties issues they've completed one of the 14 steps listed above. When they have good people like yourselves covering for them... playing down their actions and attacking those who dare to make such suggestions..... then several more of the 14 steps are taken.
Bill states, "(not to mention the writ of habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence). Does he understand that habeas corpus is effectively suspended under the Military Commissions Act?
Posted by: muirgeo | December 19, 2007 12:10 PM
Well Bill, this is the first thing of yours that I've read that's disappointed me. You could have refuted the rampant nonsense in that article without resorting to name-calling and ad hominems. That's the way of the reality-impaired, who have to facts with which to argue and must attack the person rather than the idea.
"Because, like the 9/11 conspiracy “troofers,” no one bothers to call these people out."
Not true. There are many, many blogs out there that call them out quite regularly and emphatically. Popular Mechanics published a lengthy article that demolished the "troofers", tho the troofers of course won't see it.
On the other hand, that you gave in to what seems to be simple exasperation with the outgassing of the reality-impaired was probably inevitable, since we all reach a saturation point eventually.
Posted by: Lanzman | December 19, 2007 1:24 PM
Muirgeo,
”First do you understand the basic details of the Military Commissions Act?”
Sec. 948b. Military commissions generally
(a) Purpose- This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.
There's a pretty extensive description of exactly who qualifies as an "alien unlawful combatant" and (as much as Bush is foaming at the mouth to haul you away) I'm afraid you don't make the grade. Nor do I or any other citizen of the US.
"Are you OK leaving it as is when (if) Hillary becomes president?"
Yep.
"Finally, Bush went to the big telecommunication companies and asked , WITH OUT a court order for them to turn over their records. No oversight... so I DON'T KNOW nor do you but they could be listening, logging, reviewing and reading our emails, faxes,and phone calls."
Got a link for that?
As I recall the administration asked for records that related to specific overseas phone numbers of known terrorists. But I could be wrong.
Posted by: daddyquatro | December 19, 2007 1:55 PM
daddyquatro - They did also ask for dialed number logs, which could be used to datamine for patterns indicating terrorist activity. However, if you know the nature of the data that was asked for, it really isn't that useful to someone who is trying to persecute people or anything like that. That's why I don't have any problem with it - it's not specific enough. It's really like gathering marketing data - you can search for trends and behavior patterns, but what will that do for someone trying to abuse that information? Practically nothing.
Again, muirgeo, either provide a link, or, if it's short enough, an excerpt of the text which grants, "unlimited access to your e-mails or phone conversations or your phone logs." (emph. mine)
Posted by: WayneB | December 19, 2007 2:13 PM
Hmm... I guess daddyquatro provided the link, but I still need to know how you reach the "unlimited" access conclusion.
Posted by: WayneB | December 19, 2007 2:23 PM
muirgeo,
You have asked twice about information concerning Germany's descent into fascism and the lessons that we in America might learn from them.
I do not intend to start a separate thread here about that because it is basically not relevant. The differences between German society and history and the unfolding American experience are so profound as to render the question moot.
I think that is part of the message Bill was trying to convey in his last post. The left seems committed to impose socialism upon us but I doubt that it will be in the form of National Socialism.
Posted by: svinrod | December 19, 2007 2:27 PM
WanyeB,
The link I posted is to the Military Commissions Act.
I tried (not very hard) to find some reference to the telecom story.
Found some about the financial records surveillance that the NYT broke in June 2006 here.
Posted by: daddyquatro | December 19, 2007 2:58 PM
What predictions did Velikovsky make that were so accurate they convinced you? Admittedly I'm no scholar of his, but when I've looked at the predictions pointed to by his followers... well, the man speculated wildly about an incredible number of things in an incredible number of fields. So did Nostradamus, he just wasn't claiming to be a scientist, rather a seer.
Along with his "correct" predictions are a whole host of incorrect ones, or ones that simply haven't conveniently lined up with current research in order to look correct. Challenge enough preconceptions in a field, and some of them will indeed later turn out to be wrong. What makes someone a revolutionary isn't that he played those odds, it's that he presented a logically coherent and elegant theory that makes multiple correct predictions- that are tied together well. If you "don't know how" he did it, in science, and neither does anyone else, then the odds are he didn't.
Posted by: LabRat | December 19, 2007 4:05 PM
Lanzman: While I definitely see your point (I try to be civil most of the time for just those reasons), there eventually comes a point where someone- or their ideas- just no longer deserves to be treated civilly. It's like using Marquis of Queensberry rules while fighting an angry baboon- it elevates the baboon and makes you look like you have no idea what you're fighting.
Awhile back, at another place I treasure for the high level of civility and rational discussion, a moonbat who we'd been arguing with for months casually tossed off an equation of living in a capitalist society to slavery. No one noticed until I blew my stack that the guy had just compared the oh-so-tragic condition of having to pay money for things to forcibly taking a group of people, ripping them from their homes and family, selling and disposing of them at will and implied they were basically the same. We'd all gotten so used to treating him civilly even though we thought his ideas were worthless that the equivalence passed straight for a day with no acknowledgement.
Outrage has its place. Whether this was it, I don't know, but I disagree with the notion that there is no person or idea that it wouldn't diminish the argument to treat with contempt.
Posted by: LabRat | December 19, 2007 4:11 PM
Damn I just hate it when you are wrong and you are wrong. Mumia did not kill policemen. He excuted one wounded policeman laying on the ground. Otherwise an excellent job but then there was not much competition.
Posted by: Rusty | December 19, 2007 5:14 PM
I've never gone to the trouble to register on a blog before. Your response to that so called American was such a treat, and so needed, that I felt I had to respond.
The concept of honor sometimes seems quaint in this, the age of political correctness. Yet there are times when nothing else will do but to drag some jackass out into the street and horsewhip him, sometimes figuratively, sometimes literally. Mere words seem insufficient to thank you for your effort.
That said, Merry Christmas!
Posted by: AmusedObserver | December 19, 2007 8:09 PM
From http://www.varchive.org/lec/aaas/afterword.htm
We have Velikovsky, in his own words, demonstrating how establishment science would treat those who will not go along with the preferred consensus. They, Soviet-style, delete the non-agreeing facts and opinions.
In the 1974 version of his paper, Sagan had twice mentioned both the letter of Bargmann and Motz and the letter of Hess, but in the 1976 version all such references have been deleted, even from the Bibliography. These deletions cannot have been in the interest of saving space, for Sagan allowed the length of his paper to grow by more than fifty percent. In their letter published in Science (December 21, 1962), Professor V. Bargmann, Department of Physics, Princeton University, and Professor Lloyd Motz, Department of Astronom