tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post5774811014848888388..comments2024-02-23T13:15:42.158+13:00Comments on Dissecting Leftism: JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4138458.post-70688189644400192692008-03-13T21:21:00.000+13:002008-03-13T21:21:00.000+13:00[Wow, I was ignored/moderated, or maybe, in good f...[Wow, I was ignored/moderated, or maybe, in good faith just not added to the comment queue yet, but that's bullsh*t since 29 hours is 29 hours, but I defended you in the complex sense, but tonight, a midnight later, my simple comment is NOT there among about a dozen comments. Weird jerk indeed, that fat man who doesn't read nutrition books, or eat bacon or wallaby marrow. Even though you *indirectly* called him a slug, which was not civil since you got mad and used soily words indeed, which in my opinion temporarily reduced your influence on swing voters. But just like the Art World, your comment was ignored, as was mine. That's a posture/status play on their part, like a Monty Python skit about sexuality. But Google will fix that (my girl works for Google, and they are NEUTRAL except for link algorithims), so if links to those who think dominate, then they will show up first.<BR/><BR/>So I will publish my comment here. I didn't want to play the role of middle-grounder, but my hippie history (Whole Earth Catalog / Timothy Leary / William Burroughs/ Etc.) and my sense of not giving a crap about being "hated on" makes me at least want to be RECORDED, instead of discarded via cheap moderation, in what took me two hours to write, due to research diligence.<BR/><BR/>I still can't believe that my most erudite and balanced comment was moderated away on that carbohydrate-addicted fat guy's blog. I severely criticized you, not thinking you'd see it, so I was free to brainstorm.<BR/><BR/>Yet it really does start to feel righteous to call MORBIDLY OBESE people STUPID since the scientific information about how to eat well is only a secret to factual bigots, meaning those who do not see the world clearly enough to even figure out what to eat, such as lamb, as your recipe blog details.]<BR/><BR/>COMMENT NOT PUBLISHED:<BR/><BR/>Obama says we must cut CO2 emissions by 90% within two decades, about the time he's retiring from politics, yet offers no other energy sources than coil and oil, or what we do today, which is purchase 30% of our energy from abroad. Yet the earth is not warming. It was from 1840 to 1985, in linear fashion, utterly correlated with the sun's magnetic cycles, utterly uncorrelated with the 1940 on boom in CO2 output. Since 1985 it has been cooling. In fact, and here it gets confusing, most rural temperature stations, such as all those in Australia, have been cooling for since records began on average of a century ago.<BR/><BR/>Is not someone who subscribes to the "Sky is Falling" issue alone a rather dangerous guy to elect? One who wants to stop industry, like California now does with its rolling blackouts? I indeed prefer Obama to Clinton, just to get that era over with, and to elect a half-black guy, so to remove the LEFT'S "race card" for good. But this global warming thing is a classic attempt to establish a non-democratic world government by establishing converts to a doomsday cult religion.<BR/><BR/>Here is the temperature of the South Pole for over half a century:<BR/>http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif<BR/><BR/>Here is the correlation between CO2 and temperature, as in non-correlation vs. that of sun activity:<BR/>http://s68.photobucket.com/albums/i14/SnickSnack/GlobalWarming/?action=view¤t=SolarActivity.jpg<BR/><BR/>John Ray, being in Australia, only gets his news of the USA from the media and anti-media blogs, and indeed I agree that we in the USA can handle any "liberal fascist" tendencies Obama brings to office. But the book "Liberal Fascism" as well as the book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" both have very good points, and they are not just "talking points" but historical facts about how tyranny has a way of sneaking up on societies through DEMOCRATIC means (pun intended).<BR/><BR/>The smugness of the comments here are worrying. It means your group of individuals are not very sophisticated in your view of history or of current politics, including the simple fact that many psychotic or sociopathic people seek power for the sake of power. This can be great for corporate CEOs, since they make fully logical decisions, caring not one wit about how it hurts people, yet this helps the company itself. But this is bad for politics, since government that cares about itself instead of its society is damaging to that society.<BR/><BR/>That people like John Ray are investigating this HISTORICALLY COMMON problem, and is a bit overly paranoid about it means he is doing a bit of good, not just being some jerk to be demonized or ridiculed. But if you mock him instead of confront his comments using honest and upfront debating points, you will be treated like children, or smugly privileged and thus hypocritical cocktail party liberals with limousines idling outside.<BR/><BR/>You might also want to realize that in *this* election, a LOT of Republicans are suddenly sway voters (!) due to their disdain of the very liberal McCain, and are likely to cast protest votes, and it wont be for Hillary. If Democratic activists thumb their noses at Republicans, then that protest vote will be of less force. For the record, I am a Libertarian, and I prefer Obama since he has politically stated that marijuana should be decriminalized, that being the beginning of the end of the Drug War that has put 1 in 100 of our population behind bars.<BR/><BR/>Since "Liberal Fascism" is the number one selling book in the nation, is it any surprise that the nation is poking around, looking for analogy, for clues as to whether given candidates have anti-democracy and anti-capitalistic tendencies? If you must know, since I do frequent "right wing" blogs, that there is more worry about McCain in this sense than there is about Obama. Why? Because McCain's known "liberal" hatred of productive multi-millionaires could result in actual laws being passed to cut them down a notch or two, whereas Obama would have to fight Republican opposition to, say, punitive tax levels that the Laffer Curve indicates would hurt the economy, especially the poorest members of it:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve<BR/><BR/>"He joined various Nazi groups in Australia (in addition to having joined various Communist groups) for what he says are research purposes. In the article he wrote about this he spends the whole time saying that Nazis are right-wing and what not and that he didn't find it hard to fit in because of his conservatism. This is kind of odds with his praise for J. Goldberg arguing that liberals are fascists."<BR/><BR/>Does not PUBLISHING ACADEMIC PAPERS ABOUT THESE GROUPS *validate* his claim of doing this for RESEARCH purposes?! Amongst his over 200 academic publications (http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526-0000/jonjayray.tripod.com/allrefs.html) we find at least one about this exact issue, namely antisemitic neo-Nazi groups in Australia:<BR/><BR/>http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20060526-0000/jonjayray.tripod.com/antisem.html<BR/>"THIS is a study of some present-day Australian Nazis. The data I have derived by the increasingly respectable method (among scientific sociologists) of participant observation [1]. Over the last seven years I have joined Nazi organizations and "collected" people of Nazi sympathies. As a young WASP of basically conservative political views, I found this relatively easy to do -- provided I paid my tax of an occasional antisemitic utterance."<BR/><BR/>Having read the somewhat boring 10 page article, I find at the end that although he did indeed (35 years ago) refer to neo-Nazis as "Right Wing" that he properly qualifies this term at the end by saying:<BR/><BR/>"What I have said above in using the terminology of "the extreme Right" must not be taken as implying that I believe the Nazi simply to be a conservative who is more extreme in his views. Shils [16] long ago pointed out that there are some things that Nazis and Communists have in common that in turn distinguish them from Liberals and Conservatives taken together. At its simplest Nazi and Communist are both totalitarian ideologies and Liberal and Conservative are both democratic ideologies."<BR/><BR/>And remember, modern "liberalism" has now been severely criticized for having abandoned Classic Liberalism (which was essentially Libertarian) and taken on many aspects of Big Government nanny statism. It also looks to me that his views have changed a bit in 35 years as it often does in those who have dedicated their lives to the study of political psychology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com