As all the repugnant muso hip-hop adulators pronounce vacuously on Michael Jackson’s contributions to “black music,” and other permutations thereof, the King of Pop’s last video reveals a hardcore edge: a catchy riff accompanied by a LOUD—and wait for this—competent guitar. The very antithesis of the aforementioned “art form.” Jackson the perfectionist sought out a competent, I suspect, studio axe woman playing in the progressive rock tradition, which relates to “black music” as Barack relates to economic recovery. Jackson had moved away from his signature, intolerable, squeaks-and-hiccups sound. Good for him—and for posterity, however long that lasts in this culture.
What a shame that, in Lawrence Auster’s astute estimation, Jackson had destroyed his health through drastic, disfiguring, medically-sanctioned self-mutilation.
After visiting South Africa, Eli Kedourie, “noted student of nationalism,” wrote in the South Africa International:
“If majority and minority are perpetual, then government ceases to have a mediatory or remedial function, and becomes an instrument of perpetual oppression of the minority by the majority. … The worst effects of the tyranny of the majority are seen when parliamentary government on the unalloyed Westminster model is introduced into countries divided by religion or language or race. Such for example was the case of Iraq … where an extremely heterogeneous society came to be endowed with constitutions which made no provision for diversity, and where the result was tyranny of one groups over the other groups in the society.”
Kedourie was not the only sensible scholar who pointed out the obvious. But that’s history—South Africa is history.
Why are such voices not heeded today? America’s make-up is changing. Through mass immigration, it too is moving toward becoming a racially and ethnically stratified country, in which democracy will be ever ruthlessly wielded as a weapon of the usurping majority. Yet the din for democracy grows among the conservative and neoconservative cadre.
Political democracy on the other hand, is a “leftist” idea. Why? Because it inevitably leads to a massive consolidation of power, centralized especially in the national government.
Democracy, like leftism, is un-American. It is, in fact, a foreign pollutant that wafted over the Atlantic from the French Revolution. And like a wild weed, it took root in the republic’s soil, growing out of control.
Update I (July 2): The post addresses a specific aspect that makes democratic mass-society unworkable. The premise of Mr. Kraus, hereunder, is that all cultures are equally prone to the principles of the Enlightenment. Nothing a little show of Western pride won’t fix. I vehemently disagree. The historical population of America is becoming progressively more ignorant of the principles of freedom by the day. But dissolving the American people and electing another—which is what America’s centrally planned immigration policy aims at—will ensure freedom is never revived, as immigration policies privilege Third World immigrants. Please refer to my immigration archive. Democracy, for what it’s worth, works in small, relatively homogeneous societies, like Denmark (although that country too is becoming too riven by religious and racial strife to work).
Update II: Mr. Kraus, there is nothing “unorganized” about the “multicultural noise machine.” Identity politics is highly organized and emasculating. If the latest affirmative action case tells you anything it is that by nature, the Anglo-American WASP tends to go quietly into that good night. He is expected to so do. (In fact, others of their ilk on this blog have reprimanded Ricci for daring to seek redress, instead of doing what WASPS do; hunker down and get used to losing.)
Empires have been decimated by the barbarians from within and without. You can’t do much about your own barbarians, except try and educate them. But why import more?
The so-called town halls set up for the propagandist-in-chief to peddle his policies are as alarming as the infomercials the networks avail him of. All the more so given that no forum airs any serious, substantive questions. There is something both mindless and eerie about the monolithic, collectivist nature of Obama’s “National Discussion on Health Care Reform.” Say after me, all together now, etc.
The guy is also flooding the Internet with his “message.” Is this propaganda? Heavens no. The toxic, and intoxicated journalistic profession would say this is but a savvy use of the new technology. And isn’t it all so very groovy and cool?
In last week’s “Obama’s Politburo Of Proctologists,” I explained one fundamental difference between the private market and the “public plan”: The latter “is a subsidized plan in which prices are artificially fixed below market level. As sure as night follows day, overconsumption and shortages always ensue. If he is as smart as he thinks he is, even the smarmy president must knows that, to compete with the state, private plans and insurers cannot offer services below their real cost for long.
Private practitioners who sell their wares at a loss—are not ‘too big to fail,’ and have yet to slip between the sheets with the derriere doctor-in-chief—will be waylaid. Conversely, because it enjoys a monopoly over force, the government is immune to bankruptcy. It covers its shortfalls by direct and indirect theft: by taxing the people, or flooding the country’s financial arteries with toxic fiat currency.
Other than to indenture doctors, the overall effect of forcing professionals to provide healthcare below market prices will be to decrease the supply and quality of providers and products.
My colleague Vox Day adds the following important points:
It would not be logical if the government were competing on anything remotely resembling a level playing field. However, that’s not the case with government, which has several advantages even when it doesn’t make use of its ability to assert a monopolistic position. First, a government agency has no need to make money. Subsidized by the taxpayers and public debt, it can run at a loss for decades. It can therefore undercut private competition by any amount it chooses, thus creating demand for its services even if they are inferior. Second, a government agency is allowed to exclude itself from regulations that apply to private competitors, giving it further competitive advantages that don’t necessarily show up on the balance sheets. For example, it is highly unlikely that one could successfully sue an employee at a government health care provider for malpractice. The Supreme Court upheld the Feres Doctrine in 1950, which prevents veterans from suing any Veterans Administration physician for malpractice. So, among other things, federal health care providers would not need to carry insurance due to their so-called sovereign immunity.
Obama and logic: never the twain shall meet.
An aside: My language-loving ears were stung when I heard the man, hailed for his literary skills, say in today’s portion of the week, “her and her husband …” It’s “she and her husband,” you doofus. And then, “One of the many options we have are….” It’s “one of the many options … IS.” Hint: One is singular. I’ll remind you that the fact the Obama speaks better English than Bush means nothing at all.
Update I: Chip Reid of CBS News and Helen Thomas skewer Obama’s cackling hyena of a press secretary, Robert Gibbs, over Obama’s town hall-by-invitation. Reid explains to the Mouth what a townhall is—a free for all. Both the public and the questions for the ostensible “National Discussion on Health Care Reform” were carefully preselected and screened. My sense that this was a convention of automatons was based on the fact that indeed it was. Thomas, a historical relic herself, says that this White House is the first to conduct itself in this manner: “The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I’m amazed, I’m amazed at you people who call for openness …” Imagine that: Thomas, who regularly gave Bush hell, might come to miss The Shrub, as we progress down the road to serfdom.
Update II (July 2): What Thomas told CNS News (via the Glenn Beck newsletter):
“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. “What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”
Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.
“When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said. “I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well–for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”
Asks Glenn (or his proxy): Does this mean Obama’s honeymoon with the press is coming to an end?
I answer (not that he’d know it): don’t count on it. The “parrot press” has a lot riding on that ass.
The so-called town halls set up for the propagandist-in-chief to peddle his policies are as alarming as the infomercials the networks avail him of. All the more so given that no forum airs any serious, substantive questions. There is something both mindless and eerie about the monolithic, collectivist nature of Obama’s “National Discussion on Health Care Reform.” Say after me, all together now, etc.
The guy is also flooding the Internet with his “message.” Is this propaganda? Heavens no. The toxic, and intoxicated journalistic profession would say this is but a savvy use of the new technology. And isn’t it all so very groovy and cool?
In last week’s “Obama’s Politburo Of Proctologists,” I explained one fundamental difference between the private market and the “public plan”: The latter “is a subsidized plan in which prices are artificially fixed below market level. As sure as night follows day, overconsumption and shortages always ensue. If he is as smart as he thinks he is, even the smarmy president must knows that, to compete with the state, private plans and insurers cannot offer services below their real cost for long.
Private practitioners who sell their wares at a loss—are not ‘too big to fail,’ and have yet to slip between the sheets with the derriere doctor-in-chief—will be waylaid. Conversely, because it enjoys a monopoly over force, the government is immune to bankruptcy. It covers its shortfalls by direct and indirect theft: by taxing the people, or flooding the country’s financial arteries with toxic fiat currency.
Other than to indenture doctors, the overall effect of forcing professionals to provide healthcare below market prices will be to decrease the supply and quality of providers and products.
My colleague Vox Day adds the following important points:
It would not be logical if the government were competing on anything remotely resembling a level playing field. However, that’s not the case with government, which has several advantages even when it doesn’t make use of its ability to assert a monopolistic position. First, a government agency has no need to make money. Subsidized by the taxpayers and public debt, it can run at a loss for decades. It can therefore undercut private competition by any amount it chooses, thus creating demand for its services even if they are inferior. Second, a government agency is allowed to exclude itself from regulations that apply to private competitors, giving it further competitive advantages that don’t necessarily show up on the balance sheets. For example, it is highly unlikely that one could successfully sue an employee at a government health care provider for malpractice. The Supreme Court upheld the Feres Doctrine in 1950, which prevents veterans from suing any Veterans Administration physician for malpractice. So, among other things, federal health care providers would not need to carry insurance due to their so-called sovereign immunity.
Obama and logic: never the twain shall meet.
An aside: My language-loving ears were stung when I heard the man, hailed for his literary skills, say in today’s portion of the week, “her and her husband …” It’s “she and her husband,” you doofus. And then, “One of the many options we have are….” It’s “one of the many options … IS.” Hint: One is singular. I’ll remind you that the fact the Obama speaks better English than Bush means nothing at all.
Update I: Chip Reid of CBS News and Helen Thomas skewer Obama’s cackling hyena of a press secretary, Robert Gibbs, over Obama’s town hall-by-invitation. Reid explains to the Mouth what a townhall is—a free for all. Both the public and the questions for the ostensible “National Discussion on Health Care Reform” were carefully preselected and screened. My sense that this was a convention of automatons was based on the fact that indeed it was. Thomas, a historical relic herself, says that this White House is the first to conduct itself in this manner: “The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I’m amazed, I’m amazed at you people who call for openness …” Imagine that: Thomas, who regularly gave Bush hell, might come to miss The Shrub, as we progress down the road to serfdom.
Update II (July 2): What Thomas told CNS News (via the Glenn Beck newsletter):
“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. “What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”
Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.
“When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said. “I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well–for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”
Asks Glenn (or his proxy): Does this mean Obama’s honeymoon with the press is coming to an end?
I answer (not that he’d know it): don’t count on it. The “parrot press” has a lot riding on that ass.
