You local grocer would be laughed out of business if he whined that his customers were ‘apathetic’ because they refuse to buy his rotten bananas. But the politician whines in the same way when he charges people with apathy because they won’t buy his rotten promises.
The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others.
Never under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weaknesses, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects — his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity. Never believe in the honesty or disinterestedness of anyone who disagrees with you.
This basic hatred is the heart of Marxism. This is its animating force. You can throw away the dialectical materialism, the Hegelian framework, the technical jargon, the ‘scientific’ analysis, and millions of pretentious words, and you still have the core: The implacable hatred and envy that are the raison d’être for all the rest.
It should not be surprising that people with a lot of hate and anger (especially towards minorities) would be attracted to the police department, which would afford them many chances to physically intimidate, dominate, harass, beat, and even kill them with impunity.
It should not be surprising that bad people are attracted to positions of power.
Teddy Roosevelt once got in an argument with his girlfriend and took out his anger by shooting his neighbors dog, Lyndon Johnson once tied a stick of dynamite to a dog and blew it up.
Nobody should be surprised when people in positions of power “turn out” to be the absolute scum of the earth.
Filing this under: Der and/or hello?
Cultures exist so that people can know how to get food and put a roof over their head, how to cure the sick, how to cope with death, how to get along with the living. Cultures are not bumper stickers. They are living, changing ways of doing all the things that have to be done in life. Every culture discards over time the things which no longer do the job, or which don’t do the job as well as things borrowed from other cultures. Each individual does this, consciously or not, on a day-to-day basis. Languages take words from other languages, so that Spanish as spoken in Spain includes words taken from Arabic, and Spanish as spoken in Argentina includes Italian words taken from the large Italian immigrant population there. People eat Kentucky Fried Chicken in Singapore and stay at Hilton Hotels in Cairo. This is not what some of the advocates of diversity have in mind. They seem to want to preserve cultures in their purity, almost like butterflies in amber. Decisions about change, if any, seem to be regarded as collective decisions, political decisions. But that is not how any cultures have arrived where they are today. Individuals have decided for themselves how much of the old they wish to retain, how much of the new they found useful in their own lives, in this way, cultures have enriched each other in all the great civilisations of the world. In this way, great port cities and other crossroads of culture have become centres of progress all across the planet. No culture has grown great in isolation. But a number of cultures have made historic, and even astonishing advances when their isolation was ended, usually by events beyond their control.
A central premise of US media coverage of the Israeli attack on Gaza — beyond the claim that Israel is justifiably ‘defending itself’ — is that this is some endless conflict between two foreign entitles, and Americans can simply sit by helplessly and lament the tragedy of it all. The reality is precisely the opposite: Israeli aggression is possible only because of direct, affirmative, unstinting US diplomatic, financial, and military support for Israel and everything it does. This self-flattering depiction of the US as uninvolved, neutral party is the worst media fiction since TV news personalities covered the Arab Spring by pretending that the U.S. is and long has been on the side of the heroic democratic protesters, rather than the key force that spent decades propping up the tyrannies they were fighting.