| |
|
Freedom is for brave people, not for farm animals
by Mr. Chuckles
| Apr. 23, 2008 |
The Wright controversy revealed America's deeply insecure side
by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone (with my comments, below)| |
Excerpt: A society at peace with itself wouldn't have reacted in the way it did to the partly true/partly crazy remarks of Obama's former pastor. ...
It's also a great example of how the presidential election process has become more about |
In Russia they have a word, sovok, which described the craven, chickenshit mindset that over the course of decades became hard-wired into the increasingly silly brains of Soviet subjects.
It's a hard word to define, but once you get it -- and all Russians get it -- it's like riding a bicycle, you've got it.
Sovok is the word that described a society where for decades silence and a thoughtful demeanor might be construed as evidence of a dangerous dissidence lurking underneath; the sovok therefore protected himself from suspicion by babbling meaningless nonsense at all times, so that no one would accuse him of harboring smart ideas.
|
|
|
|
OK, my comments: A great example of "sovok" is the "liberal" concern about the number of ex-convicts being granted "waivers" so that they can serve in the Armed Forces. While it is true that the idea of training gang members in demolition and B&E tactics is a little bit alarming, the supposed progressives often seem more concerned about safety than liberty, and political points over justice. AT WHAT POINT will society allow those who have "paid their debt to society" to have jobs and participate as rehabilitated citizens?
We often hear from "the Left" that soldiers sent to Iraq to die and be injured are serving their country valiantly, so why are people so opposed to allower ex-lawbreakers to re-REPAY their debit to society? With more than one-million Americans in prison or jail now, shouldn't we be a little bit concerned about helping people after the jailers are done punishing them? When is enough enough?
Likewise with the "progressive" fervor for disarming America, so that neither Hillary or Barack could even state unequivocally that a total prohibition on handguns in Washington D.C. is unconstitutional -- they must dodge and prevaricate for fear of outraging the knee-jerk liberal pussies who claim to hate Big Brother style government but apparently, only when it is their own rights being taken away.
Can't we all agree that the underlying "right" is the inalienable right to self-defense? And then maybe agree to figure out some excellent non-lethal self-defense weapons that people can carry about if they feel the need? Why NOT pink colored Tasers, which the "progressives" seem to hate so much? Or rubber-coated bullet shooting guns?
|
|
|
| enforcing the attitudes of a cultural orthodoxy than a system for choosing leaders. ...
But whether or not any of Wright's "controversial" statements have any validity at all is beside the point. The point is that a country that had any balls at all -- that was secure enough in its patriotic self-image to stare vicious criticism right in the face and collectively decide for itself, in a state of sober reflection, what part of it was bullshit and what wasn't -- such a country wouldn't do what it did in the case of the Wright flap, which is to panic instantly, collectively leap off the ground in terror like a bunch of silly bitches, and chase the criticism away in a torch-bearing mob with its eyes averted without even bothering to talk about what was actually said.
Yet naturally this is what was done in this case; the very first response of the entire national media apparatus was to denounce Wright as a kind of living disease and shriekingly demand that Obama do the same. ...
This "clanging double standard," Jacoby wrote, "raises questions" (these milquetoast pundits never just say they think a guy sucks; they always say his behavior "raises questions") about Obama's character and judgment, and about his "fitness for the role of race- transcending healer." Now, me personally, as a white guy, I have to admire Jacoby -- I'm not sure I'd have the balls to tell black America that it is permitted to criticize whitey in the style of Martin Luther King but not in the style of Malcolm X. I mean, no one sent my grandfather to be injected with syphilis at Tuskegee, or strung up my great-uncle for smiling at a white girl, so no matter what I actually think here, I'm keeping my mouth shut. But not Jacoby, and not the bulk of the media apparatus. They have no problem telling anyone, at any time, where the boundary lines of acceptable opinion are, and what the penalties are for straying beyond them.
Of course, this is not the first time that this kind of thing took place in this campaign; it's actually happened over and over again, with Farrakhan himself (when an exasperated Obama was forced to "reject" and "denounce" Farrakhan's rhetoric, as if mere "rejection" were not enough), with Geraldine Ferraro (when Obama aides demanded that Hillary denounce the ex-Veep hopeful for suggesting Obama was lucky to be a black candidate), and with End-Times enthusiast/right- wing pastor John Hagee in San Antonio, from whom John McCain was forced to make distancing statements. These sorts of denunciations also continue involving figures not connected to the candidates -- the campaign by various women's groups to censure Chris Matthews for his supposed sexist remarks is a good example, as is the much-ballyhooed incident involving Don Imus, a landmark event in the history of herd-panic and rank hypocrisy. ...
That's just the way we are, and maybe it's time to wonder why that is. In Russia they have a word, sovok, which described the craven, chickenshit mindset that over the course of decades became hard-wired into the increasingly silly brains of Soviet subjects. It's a hard word to define, but once you get it -- and all Russians get it -- it's like riding a bicycle, you've got it. Sovok is the word that described a society where for decades silence and a thoughtful demeanor might be construed as evidence of a dangerous dissidence lurking underneath; the sovok therefore protected himself from suspicion by babbling meaningless nonsense at all times, so that no one would accuse him of harboring smart ideas.
A sovok talked tough, and cheered Khruschev for banging a shoe at America, but at the same time a sovok would have sold his own children for a pair of American jeans. The sovok talked like a romantic and lavished women with compliments, but preferred long fishing trips and nights spent in the garage tinkering with his shitty car to actual sex. It's hard to explain, but over there, they know what the word means. More than anything, sovok described a society that spent seventy years in mortal terror of new ideas, and tended to drape itself in a paper-thin patriotism whenever it felt threatened, and worshipped mediocrities as a matter of course, elevating to positions of responsibility only those who showed an utter absence not only of objectionable qualities, but any qualities at all.
|
Let's face it, the long and slow
decline of America is well deserved. We are ignorant, lazy, fearful sheep who inherited a rich paradise and watched placidly as it was stolen and obliterated. Freedom is for brave people, not for farm animals.
|
Our front page is free from nudity and profanity, but interior pages and external links may not be safe for work, and you may be shocked, offended, or in trouble with your boss. A link doesn't imply that we agree with every sentence and every sentiment on every site we link to. We use our noggins, and suggest you use yours.
Anything sent to Unknown News may be published. If you don't want it published, say so plainly. Of course, we publish all incoming hate mail.
|
|
|
| |
We sell our own progressive bumper stickers:
pro-peace,
anti-Bush,
pro-freedom,
anti-Republican
stickers you won't
find anywhere else.
$3 each or two for $5
bumper stickers
|
|
| |
|
Unknown News is more fun and more informative with your participation, so please don't be shy. Consider yourself invited to speak your mind.
Because we respect peoples' privacy, we do not keep records of friends' and contributors' contact information. This means we can't forward private communications between readers and writers, but we always welcome dialogue for publication.
When we publish incoming emails, we usually edit out the sender's last name, email address, or anything else that would tend to uniquely identify the author (if we slip up, please let us know). But if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish all the details, and leave it on-line forever.
We're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly. For the most productive dialogue, it helps if you'll cite a specific article or concept we've gotten wrong.
You can contact Helen & Harry at <newsuneed at yahoo.com>. If that address ever fails, our back-up email address is <unknownnews at inbox.com>.
But please, don't email us unless you're really and truly, honestly, actually trying to send the publishers of News a communication you're not sending to anyone or everyone else.
Please don't send attachments or other cr*p we don't want.
If you're trying to reach us but getting no reply, it's probably because you've sent us cr*p we don't want, so we're filtering your emails into the trash, unopened and unread.
If you'd like to have your email address unblocked, simply send a sincere apology (from an un-blocked email address).
YOU CAN HELP
| |
|
| |
The dialogue page is our "letters to the editor" section.
To participate, email your comments to newsuneed at yahoo.com.
|
| |
