The Greatest Pictures in the Last Two Years

Hat Tip: Gatewaypatriot

Fox News: "Boehner Nameplate Placed Above Speaker's Office"

Shortly before he is sworn in as Speaker of the House, workers put the nameplate of John Boehner up above the entry to the Speaker's Office on the second floor of the Capitol Building. (...) >>>

Thought Creates Reality, or The Slaughter House Rules

The critique of postmodern thought is the centerpiece of present blog. We've been doing it since 2006 when I left my native country, the Netherlands for Greece, to embark upon a quest to find out, what TF had happened to my country.

It soon transpired - the Pope pointed the way - the problem was relativist thought. Further investigation disclosed there's a container expression for it and a host of other fallacies as its result: it's called postmodernism. For those unfamiliar with the subject, let me explain it as succinct as possible.

The core of postmodernism holds that "the truth" (or more precise, concepts) do not exist. Every school of thought, culture, race, religion, ideology is equally valid (except the West's, which are uniquely evil). We know this as multiculturalism.

They hold that language consists in arbitrary labels, and isn't an expression of a concept rooted in reality. As a consequence they believe that if you give something another name, the "essence" of the object itself has changed (I place essence in quotation marks (or postmodern irony marks), because they deny that as well).

A train of further fallacies ends in the notion that thought creates reality, instead of the other way around, and that thus, an object in "the real world" depends upon our consciousness for its existance. A postmodernist might well ask, will the sun rise tomorrow if I die overnight?

Once disconnected from the reality, literally anything goes.

This utter nonsense is all around us, but it is unique in history that we can observe the disastrous consequences from up close, in the US Democratic party in general and the Obama administration in particular. In this instant I am refering to the "Slaughter House Rules".

I give you the Wall Street Journal of this morning:

WSJ: "Slaughter House Rules"

We're not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely "deem" that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway. (...) 

We have entered a political wonderland, where the rules are whatever Democrats say they are. (...) Democrats are, literally, consuming their own majority for the sake of imposing new taxes, regulations and entitlements that the public has roundly rejected but that they believe will be the crowning achievement of the welfare state. (...) >>>

Staunch objectivists might call it a coup, yet others might question their sanity. But postmodernists aren't insane, or even psychotic in any physical sort of way - they are the victims of a very vicious anti-ideology that is essentially a philosophical war crime: it's a war on reason. They have a completely warped sense of reality.

Mind you, we're talking here about the core piece of the Obama's "fundamental transformation" of the United States, a Bill that will change the relationship between the citizen and the state, in a reversal of the philosophy that is at the heart of what is America: Liberty. It is also a government take-over of 1/6 of the US economy. (...)

And it is constructed under the notion that ... thought creates reality. Be afraid ... be very afraid.

Related

- "Postmodern Ravages"
- "Pomo Lingo"
- "The O Team: Mental Babies With Razors"

Related articles by Zemanta

• Pelosi Signals Goal of Passing Health Measure Before Obama Trip (businessweek.com)
• New House Dem strategy on ObamaCare: hostaging (hotair.com)
• Scott Brown: Health Care Push ‘Bitter, Destructive, Endless’ (blogs.wsj.com)
• Insanity Rules (newcitizenship.blogspot.com)

A Fleeting Fragment of Breathtaking Dishonesty

As  grassroots opposition of mostly senior citizens and lovers of liberty continues to build against the Health Care reform Bill as proposed by President Obama, Breitbart TV's B-Cast yesterday premiered a Naked Emperor production of just one - just one example of the truly staggering dishonesty and hypocrisy on the part of the Democratic leadership.

Or is it? It is actually part of the political philosophy the Democrats subscribe to: the native American form of relativism, called Pragmatism. As the opposition reels with outrage over the double standards, the Dems continue to embrace the "truth of the day", the narrative which happens to be expedient to their talking point of the moment.



- Filed on Articles in "The Pomo Presidency" -

The New Radicalism of the Democrats

After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi going against standing foreign policy in meeting President Assad of Syria, there's more evidence of the Democrats shifting from Social Democracy to far more radical positions.

I hesitate to typify them as simply Leftist. There's much more to it that's generally overlooked. A more accurate epithet to describe the mind-set would be Postmodern. Democratic candidate Barack Obama is a typical exponent of the movement.

Postmodernism is the current incarnation of eighteeth century reactionary anti-modernism, rooted in Kantian and Hegelian philosophy. It eventually morphed into all varieties of Marxism on the Left, and on the Right Fascism, ethic Nationalism and National Socialism.

Contemporary strains are radical feminism, anti-human environmentalism, multiculturalism, militant animal rights activism, anti globalism and anarchism. In their stance against Western values of Capitalism, limited government and liberal democracy they take up positions originating in Kantian relativist philosophy: anti-reason, anti individualism, and pro collectivism.

Anyone reading Fascist tendencies in the way some of the followers behave, is a keen observer: it is the winning combination of pragmatism (will, activism) and dogma (true belief), no questions asked. Add to that, admiration for revolutionary tactics as a means to the collectivist end, and we have a powerful cocktail for which any reasonable person should shrink.

One wonders what is going on: has the Democratic party been taken over by shady organizations and are they too dim to understand? Or have they been taken on a ideological ride? (The consciousness altering influence of relativist philosophy cannot be overestimated; eventually even the most straight thinking person will hold black to be the new white)?

All that's standing between this brand of ideas becoming official policy in an Obama tenure, are the upcoming Presidential elections. The vote for Obama or McCain truly is a choice of historical proportions!



Related:

CNN: "Chavez interested in nuclear help from Russia"

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday said he was interested in working with Russia to develop a civilian nuclear power program. His statement at a televised political rally in Caracas, Venezuela, followed a trip to Russia, where he met with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev.

"We certainly are interested in developing nuclear energy, for peaceful ends of course -- for medical purposes and to generate electricity," Chavez said, noting that Brazil and Argentina have such programs. He said Russia offered to help Venezuela develop a nuclear program, though CNN could not immediately verify his claim. (...) >>>

- Filed on Articles in "Postmodern Ravages" -

The Vacuity of Leftist Ethics

Understanding Leftist ethics takes some doing. Take this sample harvested from this week's news-crop:

CNN: "Pelosi calls on Bush to boycott Olympic opening ceremonies"

"U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says President Bush should consider boycotting the opening ceremony of the Olympics Games in Beijing this summer to protest China's human rights record. (...)" >>>

Dear Nancy, so sensitive when it comes to human rights (or any rights) and vile tyrants who violate them. So the President is called upon to take the moral high-ground in the matter of the China Olympics and rather gratuitously boycott the opening ceremony.

Nancy herself would never give dictators credibility, provide them with a soap-box, or make them look respectable negotiating partners ... or would she?

Key to understanding this inconsistent behavior is the principle of the Marxist dialectic. Policy is dictated by whatever course of action hurts capitalism or the 'power structure' the most.

Both cases (Syria and China) have nothing to do with morals, the violation of human rights, the Middle East peace process, or hobnobbing with the Shi'ite godfathers of terror. In both cases the goal is that the prestige of the Bush administration suffers.

So, what might seem erratic behavior to objective thinkers, is actually perfectly consistent by the subjectivist book, if not a little hypocritical.