blessed be my enemies; they bring out the best in me

Archive for March 2011

When Their Lips Are Moving

leave a comment »

Vivian Schiller, CEO of NPR, announced her resignation this morning. Credible sources (read: not NPR—see here) say NPR’s board forced her out.

It was James O’Keefe—that young, college-age, wonderfully dorky wisp of a whitey-white white boy—who was responsible for yesterday’s earlier-than-planned resignation of NPR’s Vice President of Fund Raising, followed by today’s much-earlier-than-planned resignation of NPR’s CEO.

This is the same James O’Keefe who, along with his cute cohort Hanna Giles, single-handedly (well, with messaging help from the brilliant and brilliantly media savvy Andrew Breitbart) took down Acorn—a nation-wide “Community Organizing” apparatus (oh, the euphemisms!) that “just happened” to be one of the DNC’s—and Obama’s, in particular—largest, most powerful vote-garnering operations (legal or otherwise—it matter not!).

While on this topic of ignominious resignations, you may also recall some other uncannily similar incidents.

Remember a certain “Van” Jones (in quotes because, as you may also recall, that’s not his real name—he simply chose “Van” because, sounding like your typical teenager, he “thought it sounded cool”) who was appointed by the Obama administration to head up Obama’s “green jobs” racket (which is exactly what it is)? Remember how that “stupid, crazy, radical, extremist” Glenn Beck found some videos of “Van” Jones admitting to his adoption of Communist ideology; his pride in being arrested for partaking in a riot “in support of” cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal; his [typical] demonizing of “white folk” for “steering poison into the people-of-color communities”; and then, in the coup de grâce, uncovered “Van” Jones’ signature on a “truther” petition that implicated George W. Bush (and, of course, evil Zionists) for being behind the felling of the Twin Towers on 9/11?

Remember what happened to “Van” Jones? Yes—he was spirited away from his cushy White House job in the middle of the night over the Labor Day weekend—not coincidentally at the pit of the news cycle.

While we’re here, remember also when a certain surreptitiously recorded conference call between the NEA’s [former] Communications Director Yosi Sargent and a squad of local “artists” who were conspiring on how to leverage tax payer money, funneled through the NEA, to help propagandize Obamacare (which was, at that time—and continually to this dayviewed unfavorably by a majority of the population)—remember what happened when those tapes were released to the public?

I’m sure there are plenty of other incidents I could cite but, as they are not sitting readily at the top of my head, I’ll leave it at that as I feel the few examples above should suffice for demonstrative purposes.

So now let’s go back to the latest NPR imbroglio for a moment.

Recall that [now former!] CEO Vivian Schiller had very recently publicly testified that NPR (and PBS) are greatly reliant upon taxpayer subsidies—which was immediately directly contradicted by her chief fund-raising executive in [what he thought was] a private conversation.

Recall too that very same [Vivian] Schiller saying there was no liberal bias at her organization, and that, despite the fact that conservatives and liberals are nearly unanimous in their respective opposition to/support of public funding for NPR, any accusations of bias were merely “problems of perception.” Again, this was immediately contradicted by the same chief fund-raising executive in the same assumed private conversation where he flagrantly trashed anyone to the right of Lenin while coughing up the standard liberal conceits about their (liberals’) presumed monopoly on all possible intelligent, reasoned, informed, pragmatic, responsible, and oh-so-moral political, social, and economic positions.

And note what [Ron] Schiller said in his official apology after his termination: “…I made statements during the course of the meeting that are…not reflective of my own beliefs.” Perhaps you may wish to re-watch him enunciating those “statements.” Do you honestly believe they are not truly reflective of his “own beliefs”? Didn’t he even say that he was “taking off his NPR hat”—i.e., speaking of his own beliefs—prior to making some of his most damning of statements?

And lastly, if you were to read the Ed Morrissey’s HotAir write-up linked to above, you’ll see that there is a direct contradiction between what NPR news is stating as the reason for [Vivian] Schiller’s abrupt resignation this morning, and what “those in the know” are saying.

As Juan Williams—understandably agitated to near paroxysms over the staggering depths of the very liberal hypocrisy, cynicism, and arrogance of which he, himself, was a victim—said in a quote to “Fox Nation” (emphasis mine): “The rank hypocrisy of his remarks was telling for me. They will say things to your face about how there’s no liberal orthodoxy at NPR, how they play it straight, but now you see it for what it is. They prostitute themselves for money.”

Did you happen to note that in all these incidents, there are two key unifying factors: 1) The guilty parties are all liberals, and 2) all that it took to usher their hasty downfall was to expose to the public what they were saying behind the public’s back?

It’s not like an Eliot Spitzer or Bill Clinton or even John Edwards situation where you have some Lothario getting snagged engaging in licentious behavior. Moral failings—especially when it comes to male sexuality—are, if not necessarily forgivable, at least somewhat understandable.

What we see above is categorically different. What we are seeing (and hearing), time and time again, is that when liberals in some position of power mistakenly believe they are speaking to a closed audience of like-minded individuals, they have a completely contradictory message to what they say publicly.

One can’t help but wonder: What else are they saying, out of public view, that hasn’t been clandestinely caught on tape?

And, even more enraging: How much have they gotten away with in all the years prior to the rise of the internet, blogs, YouTube, and social media whereby everyday citizens could finally perform the job that the patently colluding MSM was supposed to be doing?

To compare, take, e.g., Scott Walker, who was “punked” (oy, the childishness) by some goon from Buffalo into thinking he [Walker] was speaking with Libertarian philanthropist David Koch. Walker’s conversation with “Koch”, which he believed to be private, was perfectly consistent with what he [Walker] was saying to the public.

Which reinforces what I’ve contended before: Your average conservative can be characterized as one who means what he says and says what he means, while your average [modern] liberal can be characterized as a cynical, Machiavellian, amoral, narcissistic elitist who will do and say anything and everything to maintain or strengthen his grip on money, power, and influence.

In a question: How do you know when liberals are lying?


Written by Ex Machina

March 9, 2011 at 12:25 pm

Parody Becomes Impossible

leave a comment »

Geeks (read: people very smart on the technical side of things, but who tend to be very dumb on the social side) often look to Star Trek as a template for how to engineer the future—i.e., what fictional technologies are really cool and therefore should be the focus of R&D.

And as William Shatner would attest, this has resulted in a lot of very cool, very good things.

On the other hand, liberals, as it has long been apparent, tend to model their social engineering on some absurdity that had been deployed in the service of parody. Take, for example, this story:


More than 100 Northwestern students watched as a naked woman was penetrated by a sex toy wielded by her boyfriend during an after-class session of the school’s popular “Human Sexuality” class.

Anyone familiar with classic Monty Python and who reads the above snippet will no doubt involuntarily recall this scene from The Meaning of Life:


These days, it must be really vexing for satirists to keep up with liberal’s accelerating free-fall down the abyss, let alone get ahead of the curve enough to actually get some egregious absurdity published as fiction before liberals have already established it as fact. (I once had a thought about writing a Swiftian piece about liberals genetically engineering human tissue to serve in haute cuisine restaurants—so that they could be “humane” cannibals while still being “edgy” in their delighted and smug shattering of one of the last few remaining taboos. Woe is me, for literally the next day I came across this report: Berlin ‘cannibal’ restaurant calls for diners to donate body parts for menu.)

This all brings to mind a good friend of mine’s high school senior quote: “On matters of fashion, go with the flow; on matters of principle, stand like a rock.”

In the liberal’s world view where all is relative and there are absolutely no absolutes, all is fashion; everything goes with the flow.

And, subsequently, parody becomes impossible…and principles are eroded to sand.

Written by Ex Machina

March 3, 2011 at 12:47 pm

Killing the Undead

leave a comment »

“Modern Liberalism” (“Neo-Liberalism”, “Cultural Marxism”, “Crypto-Socialism”, whatever) is like a zombie—a horrible monster that feeds on human brains and absolutely refuses to stay dead no matter how many times the good guys shoot it.

But make no mistake: Kill the beast we must.

Though there are many significant philosophical differences between “hard-core Libertarians” and “moderates” (for my purposes here, I include in this latter umbrella term a wide swath of political perspectives: various conservative classifications such as paleos and neocons, moderates of both political parties, and independents), there is nevertheless a bedrock of common ground that is of fundamental importance: We all look to respect the US Constitution due to (and in addition to) our shared desire to see to it that the Republic of the United States of America endures, ensuring that unalienable rights such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (at minimum) are protected so as “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Contrast this with modern-day Liberals—a motley crew of globalists, socialists, communists, anarchists, anti-capitalists, anti-white racists, anti-Christian zealots, anti-Semites, Islamo-fascists, anti-American nutcases, anti-humanity/pro-Gaia militant hippies, not to mention the sundry drunks, womanizers, gangsters, thugs, scammers, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc.—whose widely and wildly divergent agendas nonetheless all converge around the singular goal of negating every tradition and institution that has been correlated with (and arguably causative of) the rise of American Exceptionalism and the attendant modern Golden Age known as Pax Americana. These include (but are not limited to):

  • Demographics
    • A predominantly Christian people;
    • A predominantly white population; and
    • Integration and assimilation of immigrants—and flexible, pragmatic, and sane immigration policy that could be adjusted if certain immigrant groups prove problematic.
  • Culture
    • A reverence for the founding fathers, their vision for the nation, and their crowning achievements: the Declaration of Independence and the foundational contract between Americans and their government, the US Constitution;
    • Respect for, practice of, and promulgation of “Judeo-Christian” values, such as regular worship of “The Almighty”, the nuclear family, homosexuality as sinful (or at least socially aberrant), humility, honesty, fidelity, charity, respect for the law, peace-making, defense of the vulnerable, etc.;
    • A military that was incorruptibly disciplined and upright, rightly revered, and whose traditions were sacrosanct and immune to the whims and fashions of the populace whom it protects and shields from the horrors they are uniquely trained to confront;
    • Social mores that stressed personal responsibility, patriotism, industriousness, ingenuity, education, positivity (“where never is heard…a discouraging word…”), rugged individualism, community (yes, in addition to “rugged individualism”), chivalry, etiquette, and egalitarianism—and stigmatized collectivism, slovenly, boorish, or outright criminal or treasonous behavior, reliance upon charity or social services for anything beyond temporary assistance in the event of some personal catastrophe or hardship, and a lifetime embrace of victimhood, excuse-making, and childish petulance and importunateness as a means of slithering out of one’s responsibilities and/or getting something one wants; and
    • Faith in the abilities of fellow American citizens—hard-working, intelligent, civil, honest, and fair—to self-govern, and skepticism and antagonism toward those who would deign themselves superior and uniquely fit to commandingly micromanage the lives of said citizens.
  • Academia
    • Education emphasizing both the pragmatic (math, science, reading, writing, etc.) and the cultural pillars of Western Civilization (“the classics” of art & literature, the history of Western Civilization, etc.)—and regarded statist indoctrination as anathema; and
    • Instruction in civics, including basic knowledge of the system of American governance, an understanding of the Constitution, and general preparation of every student to become a “good citizen”, intimately knowledgeable and respectful of this, their “country of laws, not men.”
  • News Media
    • A free press that strove for objectivity and endeavored to keep the state in check by serving as the public’s watchdog against political machinations—and certainly not to provide cover for such political machinations.
  • Entertainment Media
    • Entertainment (including sports) that sought to entertain and/or ennoble, not to constantly drive a far-left political agenda and/or debase society by glorifying—and hugely remunerating—the absolute worst of human depravity.
  • Government
    • A judiciary that would adjudicate, not legislate;
    • “Blind justice” meaning equality under the law—regardless of socioeconomic status, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or the like;
    • A political class who, by and large, genuinely sought to serve their constituents, their cities or states, and their country, without cynicism or greed—let alone contempt and hostility toward those they were elected to represent; and
    • A federal government whose powers were specifically enumerated and strictly constrained, with nearly all powers delegated to states, localities, and—above all—to the individual.
  • Individual liberty
    • Free markets unfettered from onerous government interference and/or corrupt, political manipulation;
    • A decentralized economy guided by the “invisible hand” arising from the ingenuity, ambitions, and good faith of the individuals and their businesses that comprise said “free market”;
    • Freedom of speech and right to peaceable assembly, regardless of how unpopular that speech or assembly may be; and
    • Freedom to conduct one’s life as one chooses—to freely associate, to be able to defend one’s personal views without fear of losing one’s friends, livelihood, savings, or safety merely because those views are not popular, to eat as one wishes, to read what one chooses, to illuminate one’s home as one prefers, to use as many squares of toilet paper as one deems necessary—to make one’s own choices based upon one’s own unique, individual thinking and experiences and not be obligated to abide by the dictates of some far-removed, pompous, hypocritical, narcissistic, self-appointed, aristocratic vanguard issuing their untethered-from-reality, oft-destructive, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do decrees from their palaces—palaces built and paid for by the very people they consider to be incorrigibly inferior to themselves.

The modern liberal—whether he realizes it or not—stands for and assists with the reversal of each facet of traditional American society bulleted above (and many more—it’s only a partial list).

As a result, Modern Liberalism, along with its political vector, the Democratic Party, has lost all legitimacy within the American body politic proper (“proper” meaning those who wish to see, not the destruction of, but the continuance of—and now, after 50 years of wildly destructive, Liberal Establishment hegemony, the revival of—the Republic). It’s as if we are entertaining enemies of the state as some sort of valid political alternative—treating traitors as simply some different but equally legitimate perspective on how best to run the business of America.

This is simply fallacious thinking.

Imagine Ward and June Cleaver grappling with some crisis that affected their household. Though Beaver and Wally may take different sides in the debate, it would be highly unlikely that things would get so ugly as to convince anyone that either side was actually rooting for and surreptitiously working toward the destruction and disintegration of the Cleaver household, no?

Now imagine Claudius, Gertrude, and Prince Hamlet. Despite Claudius’ affectations to the contrary, he is a dangerous, villainous man who rose to power through deceit and murder and who poses an existential threat to the legitimate—and noble—heir to the throne. Is Hamlet wrong for seeking Claudius’ destruction? Isn’t Hamlet’s cause just?

At the risk of putting things too simply, the “Leave it to Beaver” anecdote above is analogous to the Libertarian/Moderate split: Both are united in their desire to “fix the family”, but divided on how best to get there. On the other hand, “Hamlet” here is analogous to the (Moderate + Libertarian)/Modern Liberal split. Like Claudius, Modern Liberalism ascended to its position of power—and seeks to maintain that position of power—through deceit, bribery, extortion, racketeering, intimidation, and worse. It’s only just that this Machiavellian, power-hungry ideology is disposed of, its sycophants ridiculed into shamed silence, and its tyrants given the boot from all halls of power—whether that be from government offices, ivory towers, news organizations, or the like.

But being that this bad penny of an ideology is as stubborn and as it is crafty, like a zombie, it can’t be taken out with a few quick and easy shots. It must be obliterated, completely, and then safeguards must be put in place to make sure this zombie menace does not rise again.

There are so many fronts on which to fight this beast that it may seem overwhelming. But certainly even the least amongst us can assist the effort by removing their political blinders, acknowledging the situation for what it is, and not being afraid to “speak truth to power” as “they” love to say—no matter how many insults they hurl at you (stupid, racist, etc.).

The fight is on, the time is now, and there’s absolutely no upside to pussing out.

Written by Ex Machina

March 1, 2011 at 10:38 am