Update: just saying [/gloat]
August 20, 2009
The brilliant opinionator and blogger Michelle Malkin yesterday started a collection point for cases of the O team saying to be sorry for having misspoken: read all about it in "The Team Obama “misspoke”-o-meter". People have started to notice the habit and are trying hard to discern a pattern.
This may be a new phenomenon to the White House, but the Dutch have seen it all happen before when the relativist Liberal Democrats (D66) were part of the governing coalition. Also Pragmatists, they share the same faux, subjectivist world view with the postmodern Obamites.
Their skewed philosophy rests on the error that universals are but a figment of man's imagination. From this fallacy follows that concepts and essences - being universals - also do not exist.
As a result, some arbitrary attribute may be attached to - for instance man - and mistakingly serve the purpose of an essence: what to think of systems that take decisions (no parenthesis, and taken quite literally) or an angry mob. Can someone please explain what is 'an angry mob' in the order of things? (Dutch speakers may visualize the concept 'lurf' here: it is a non-existent body part. )
It borders baby-talk uttered by grown men in charge of the black suitcase, the red telephone, the nuclear button - in other words, the world's highest office has become the playpen of human entities with the mental makeup of infants: in effect, babies with razors.
Concepts, essences and universals are replaced by fleeting thought and linguistic constructs: fact and reality swapped for personal opinion and meaningless rhetoric.Words having become just that (bla bla) and thought having been reduced to mere synapses, these tend to seen as ends in themselves and used as labeling devizes: changing the label is then confused with altering the 'meaning' of the (conceptless) word. (The question aside why you would want to do that in the first place ... but that's a subject for "The Left's Default Position: Coercion".)
Hence it is possible for White House spokesman Robert Gibbs - a man who has gone in six months time from "unquestioned authority" to "perplexingly arrogant and thin-skinned" - to state that he had 'misspoken' in calling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Iran’s 'elected leader'.
Mind you, he doesn't say that the statement was factually wrong or morally wanting. He means that he's sorry for having used a label which - to some people at least - was not in the best of tastes. Or perhaps he should have used another 'tone' - another favorite in the subjectivist tool kit, absent objective standards.Whereas "elected leader" is the meaningless epithet attached to A/jad on Tuesday, on Wednesday it has become "the Iranian people who will decide". Ethics again aside, in the real world neither is factually true, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
Another instance of Gibbs' subjectivism is provided on the blog of Patriot In Exile, in "Robert Gibbs is a freaking idiot":
"So, I was listening to my talk radio and heard an audio that I just could not believe. Robert Gibbs was asked about Obama’s campaign pledge about not raising taxes on those making less than $250k/yr. Remember him saying that?
Well, when Gibbs was asked about this pledge by a reporter, Gibbs told the reporter that he can’t comment on any “hypotheticals”. WHAT?!?!? Hypotheticals?"
... yes ... in the skewed world of the pomo toddlers everything is just that - arbitrary, fleeting, hypothetical, meaningless yada yada in the service of expediency - their expediency of course (hence the double standards). Those with a concept of objectivity have a word for it ... lying. As it happens, Postmodernists don't lie: they just have a skewed perspective on reality! Welcome to the pomo Presidency!|Update:
As a general rule it works the other way around as well. If Conservatives or Reps call them half-baked fascists, they think they've just been called ugly names. The observation is in fact based on objective, philosophical extrapolation - but since they literally have no concept, what remains is arbitrary labeling.
Tell them an objective truth - for example that the O Team are traitors to their own election pledges - and you'll get a subjective mouthful of why you would say that, none of which repudiates the accusation ... you know the drill, a litany of psychological projection which comes in rather handy, because they'll inadvertently reveal what they're up to: racists!, swastika toting fascists!, "in the pay of lobbyists and special interests", astroturfers!, or "an angry mob". The ensuing cognitive dissonance keeps the entire process in a perpetuum mobile, causing a sigh that 'indeed, panta rei!'- Files on Articles in "Postmodern Ravages"-
Posts
1 comments:
Skewed concept of reality - yes.
My Islam post is up, by the way, as a tribute to Geert.
Post a Comment