American Elephants

The Socialist Dream, in which Reality Always Intrudes by The Elephant's Child

“How is it possible for any sentient human being to have lived through the 20th century without coming to understand that property rights are the basis of any rights that human beings have ever been able to secure, and that far from conflicting with human needs, profits are the only practical engine ever devised that even half succeeded inn fulfilling them.
Such willful ignorance does not stem from lack of intelligence, but has a deeper source in human desires that can only be satisfied by  religious faith. The socialist dream of achieving a kingdom of heaven on earth is as old as Eden.  It is the idea of putting a human design on the impersonal structures of the social order beginning with the economic market and extending to the constitutional order. In wishing this, socialists fail to understand that a market that human beings cannot control and a political process they are bound to respect are the very disciplines that human beings require in order to be human.”
…………………………………………………David Horowitz:  Jewish World Review 1/3/2000

“Ever since Karl Marx sat in the Reading Room of the British Library writing Das Kapital, great Western thinkers have been obsessed with discovering the flaw in capitalism, a kind of negative Holy Grail for the knights of progressivism. For Marx, capitalism functioned only by exploiting the proletariat. But the proletariat got richer and bought homes in the suburbs. So the next generation of Marxists turned their attention to “colonialism:” capitalism functioned by looting the West’s imperial possessions. But the West decolonized in the Fifties and Sixties, and they didn’t get any poorer,
only the colonies did. So the Marxists invented “neo-colonialism:”capitalism functioned by informally exploiting the nominally independent developing world. But the dramatically differing rates at which developing economies developed in Asia, Africa and Latin America seemed to have little to do with external forces and a lot to do with obvious local factors.
By the time the UN met at Durban, the grievance-mongers were down to slavery. Europe and America had built their wealth on the slave trade. By this theory, the United Kingdom, which was the first to abolish slavery – in the British Isles in 1772, and throughout the Empire in 1833 – ought to be an economic basket case, while the Sudan, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, Ghana and the Ivory Coast, to name just a few of the countries in which slavery is currently practiced ought to be rolling in dough. Instead, of course, large parts of the post-colonial world are more impoverished than they have ever been.”
…………………………………………………………Mark Steyn: The New Criterion, 2/2002

“From around 1970, supposed environmental degradation has played a useful role for the Left as proof of the many wrongs of capitalism. Marx’s theory of exploitation of the workers has long been disproved by increasing affluence among the working class. Lenin tried to substitute imperialism as an explanation, but as most colonies gained independence and many showed robust growth, this didn’t do the trick. In the 1970s hope rose that environmental disaster eventually would led to the destruction of capitalism. Hope dies hard, which explains the persistent refusal to accept that most environmental indicators are improving.
…A triumph for the European right will probably not stop the drift towards ever more draconian environmental regulations founded on weak science. Only a shift in public perceptions and priorities can reverse this trend. Given balanced information and realizing they have to bear the burden of environmental policies themselves, the public are probably more likely to be leading such a reversal than tottering politicians, left or right.”
…………………………….Jan Arild Snoen, Oslo. Tech Central Station – Europe 6/10/02

Democratic Socialism is Still Socialism by The Elephant's Child

A Unified, Coordinated Attack Machine? by The Elephant's Child


Have you noticed that the Left keeps changing the meaning of words?

“A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much. And you know what? We can’t have that. You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist. And I say, really, we’re not supposed to use that word. You know what I am? I’m a nationalist, OK? I’m a nationalist. Nationalist. Use that word.”

…………………………………………….President Donald Trump
……………………………………………………October 22, 2018.

I had no trouble understanding his meaning, Of course I believe in the United States of America and put the country’s well being ahead of any goofy ideas of world government. I have always thought of myself as a nationalist. I love this country and celebrate the freedom that our constitution and our history promise. But apparently the meaning of the word “nationalism” has changed in the minds of the Left.

Chris Cillizza at CNN (of course it is CNN) wrote: “The roots of Adolph Hitler’s rise were built around his emphasis on extreme nationalism – the idea that the only way Germany could be great again was to seize onto the superiority of the German people and drive out those across Europe who refused to acknowledge that superiority.” Actually, Hitler had some other things n his mind than superiority, but the language has changed Nationalism = Nazism.

Clearly, we insulted the leftist media by suggesting that the unhinged mob of partisans screaming and pounding on the doors of the Supreme Court itself were an “unhinged mob.” The media made it clear that they sympathized with Christine Blasey Ford and any and all other accusers of Judge Kavanaugh, but using “mob” terminology for an actual mob was going too far.

The New York Times indulges itself with an assassination fantasy while blaming President Trump for the bombs mailed to members of the Left. They are quick to blame the president’s rhetoric for any increase in violence in our society.

What rhetoric? Why the President called the media “fake news”, and he said that they were “the enemy of the people.” That’s the thing that eats at the media. But continually misreporting the news isn’t exactly helpful. If the media can deliver only politicized news, they are failing in their most basic function which is to help their listeners or readers to understand what is going on in the world. Of course it is much harder to report in an disinterested voice, scrupulously avoiding one’s own partisan beliefs. But journalists seem to have no oath of office, no guardrails, they work only at the peril of instantly losing their job if they are politically incorrect.

%d bloggers like this: