Monday, June 25, 2007

Live Free or Die Hard, Or Just Apathetically Let Freedom Slide Effortlessly From Your Disinterested Grasp.....It Used To Be Great

There's no livin' free in Europe these days. No one can watch Die Hard and even think about livin' free in Europe:

Yes indeed, two different titles for the same movie! I guess the "live free" part of the title was considered to be too sensitive outside of North America? I know that "Live free or die" is the state motto of New Hampshire, but that is hardly an excuse. A second difference is that The Statue of Freedom in the background on top of the U.S. Capitol is a lot closer to Willis' ear in the international version. Because the voice of freedom is much more faint?
There's no livin' free in Great Britain, either. Everyone is Salmon Rushdie according to Mark Steyn:
In 1989 Salman Rushdie went into hiding under the protection of the British police. A decade later he decided he did not wish to live his life like that and emerged from seclusion to live a more or less normal life. He learned the biggest lesson of all – how easy it is to be forced into the shadows. That's what's happening in the free world incrementally every day, with every itsy-bitsy nothing concession to groups who take offense at everything and demand the right to kill you for every offense. Across two decades, what happened to Rushdie has metastasized, in part because of the weak response in those first months. "Death is perhaps too easy"? Maybe. But slow societal suicide is easier still.
Maybe you think it can't happen here. It can happen. It is happening. Freedom gets taken away one little, subtle withholding of a point-of-view at a time. Guess which point-of-view PBS suppresses.

For a step-by-step manual on utopian socialist fantasies gone wrong, look to Venezuela (Via Fausta who has more excellent links). Daniel at Venezuela News and Views reveals this:
No more private property besides your personal belongings. That is, there will be some private sector allowed with business of reasonable size but the sate will have the right to expropriate or confiscate at will if it thinks it is necessary to its interests (NOTE: even if it is all made in the name of the "people", since it is the state that translates the "real will" of the people, well, you know which are the interests truly served).

The air borne media will have rights to emit only if they serve educative purpose. The state decides which are the educative goals.

The autonomy of Universities is done with. The state will be deciding which careers should be offered and which is the right curriculum to follow. You can decide on your own how creativity and free thought in a controlled university will prosper.

Decentralization will be done with. Governors and Mayors will be subordinated to special vice presidents. Mayors can be removed almost at will by the National Assembly. And anyway, elected Governors and Mayors will be gutted of most meaningful power they might have. That is, they will be left with picking up the garbage and be blamed for anything else that doe snot work.
Every day, people around the world trade their freedom for the proverbial bowl of soup. They sate their appetite for a day and spend a lifetime hungry.

Science gets subverted to serve political ends. Everything gets subverted for political ends and those doing the subverting do so to their own demise--they actually participate in their own destruction and only wake up when they too suffer outside of the increasingly narrow political correctness. They operate under the delusion that they will be spared. They will always be deemed correct. They are, of course, wrong.

How most excellent and honored and bureaucratic does this sound? United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yes, a bureaucracy of scientists obfuscating and outright lying to promote the notion of climate change. From Newsbusters:
That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!

Pretty extraordinary, wouldn’t you agree? A "correction factor." Honestly, the way these folks manipulate data is nothing less than astounding.

Yet, Mörner wasn’t finished, as he later detailed an incident when IPCC scientists actually destroyed evidence which refuted their rising sea level claims:

This tree, which I showed in the documentary, is interesting. This is a prison island, and when people left the island, from the '50s, it was a marker for them, when they saw this tree alone out there, they said, “Ah, freedom!” They were allowed back. And there have been writings and talks about this. I knew that this tree was in that terrible position already in the 1950s. So the slightest rise, and it would have been gone. I used it in my writings and for television. You know what happened? There came an Australian sea-level team, which was for the IPCC and against me. Then the students pulled down the tree by hand! They destroyed the evidence. What kind of people are those? And we came to launch this film, “Doomsday Called Off,” right after, and the tree was still green. And I heard from the locals that they had seen the people who had pulled it down. So I put it up again, by hand, and made my TV program. I haven't told anybody else, but this was the story.
Lying to protect a greater "truth" that the data shows is false. Political correctness has infected all branches of science. Tread very carefully within the hallowed halls of science. A rotting stench from the carcases of hard data fouls the air.

So a failing society seeks the easy economic way, turns science into tools for delusion, and neuters itself. And the bureaucracy does it. In this case, teachers do it. This is getting more play these days. Eric over at Classical Values has a must read post:
Decadent bureaucrats mutilate soldiers
"Decadence" is the essential condition of "a society which believes it has evolved to the point where it will never have to go to war."
--Air Force Colonel Robert Wheeler
How do you feel about the state forcing boys to become eunuchs, metaphorically speaking? (Although, all their literal sitting in a class, drugged and acting bland could be deemed literal.)
For obvious reasons, the picture on the left is not getting much mainstream media play. I can't think of a better way to expose the anti-war bureaucrats than the boys' simple demonstration that the school bureaucrats had wounded the troops. No words can match the eloquence of the bloodied bandages!

I wrote several posts about eunuchs, and I think this is as good a place as any to add a few words about Phil Bowermaster's post about transmasculinity, which Glenn Reynolds linked yesterday. I have no problem with the idea of transmasculinity (or androgyny), and don't think it is remotely the same as state-enforced policies forcing boys to become eunuchs.
I actually disagree with Eric about the fall of Rome not being associated with sexual morés. How did the military get weak and soft to begin with? Could the same denuded approach to society self-protection be related to a laissez-faire attitude toward individual self-protection? Could the Christian conservatism be a reaction to a decadent society and yet elements of Christianity--deceived and morally corrupt themselves-- participate in the downfall because of doctrinal misunderstanding (think Episcopalians)? I think so. I do agree with him here, though:
We don't have early Christians taking over as they did in Rome, nor do we have a eunuch staff running the military. However, I think there may be parallels between Christians and socialists in the ecological niche sense (Christian theology is often interpreted as having a soft spot for socialism, which IMO has caused a great deal of trouble), and I think we could be experiencing tyranny at the hands of the modern equivalent of eunuchs (people who abhor masculinity and femininity and who, while they may talk the talk about sexuality, are in reality a bunch of unattractive, "spineless, ball-less wimps" if I may borrow the phrase.....)
This is absolute truth. The neuterization of society, the declining birthrates, the unwillingness to set a boundary against anything manifests individually and societally. There is a lot of self-loathing and other loathing sexually, and that makes for a confused bunch of people willing to make terrible compromises to feel good about themselves. Back to the bowl of soup.

I do not think it's an accident that the United States hesitates to create a boundary in its relationships. There is no sense of American self--or there is a danger in losing what's left of one. There will eventually be nothing to protect. The United States will cease to be the strong arms the world can count on for protection, if those arms are so weak they can't protect themselves. Worse, they will be too weak to extend in welcome either.

It won't matter. Without freedom, liberty and justice (and all that other stuff), no one will want to come here anyway. America will be just like every other place in the world. Confused, unsafe, economically constricted, limited, petty, tyrannical, consumed by conspiracy theories masquerading as science. Dark. As in Dark Ages.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I think we could be experiencing tyranny at the hands of the modern equivalent of eunuchs (people who abhor masculinity and femininity and who, while they may talk the talk about sexuality, are in reality a bunch of unattractive, "spineless, ball-less wimps" if I may borrow the phrase.....)

And then the non-neuters will welcome Islam, the Real Man's Religion. No simpering eunuchs in Islam, except for pieces of property guarding the harems.