Left Exposed

Václav Klaus -

rws — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:19:00 +0000

Presenting the climate changes we’ve been experiencing in the last decades as a threat to the Planet and letting the global warming alarmists use this bizarre argument as a justification for their attempts to substantially change our way of life, to weaken and restrain our freedom, to control us, to dictate what it is we should and should not be doing is unacceptable. Their success in influencing millions of quite rational people all around the world is rather surprising. How is it possible that they are so successful in it? And so rapidly? For older doctrines and ideologies, it took usually much longer to get such an influential and widely shared position in society. Is this because of the specifics of our times? Is this because we are continuously “online”? Is this because religious and other metaphysical ideologies have become less attractive and less persuasive? Is this because of the need to promptly refill the existing spiritual emptiness – connected with “the end of history” theories – with a new “noble cause,” such as saving the Planet?

The environmentalists succeeded in discovering a new “noble cause”. They try to limit human freedom in the name of “something” that is more important and more noble than our very down-to-earth lives. For someone who spent most of his life in the “noble” era of communism this is impossible to accept.

In their own words -

rws — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 02:51:00 +0000

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would
be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean,
cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
- Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized
civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United
States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the
amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these
Third World countries right where they are.”
- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced
resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
- Professor Maurice King

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100
million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see
wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout
the world.”
-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Martinra at Daily Pundit -

rws — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 04:15:00 +0000

Any “scientific” claim made without
willingness to share every scrap of data, every technique, and every
last line of code used to reach the conclusion, is not science. At best
it is simply flawed, because real science requires independent
repeatability of experiments. At worst, it is not even wrong but
actively fraudulent.

If the Warmistas were actually scientists, they would
welcome skeptical, even hostile, review of their work. They would
welcome it when any real flaws were found in their methodology. Since
they do not, they are not scientists. They are highly credentialed
Ruling Class fraudsters, betrayers of real science and of real
scientists whose mannerisms they ape but whose shoes they are not fit to
shine. They deserve no more consideration from anyone with a
functioning cerebrum than do the folks selling “miracle” weight loss
pills on TV at 2AM. In a world unlike ours, i.e. one not dominated by
insane legal and social kabuki so convoluted it would stun medieval
Byzantine patriarchs at three hundred paces, they would be in jail for
fraud.

Jeff Goldstein -

rws — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:31:00 +0000

For the progressive agenda to ascend, the ideals of
classical liberalism — those concerning individual autonomy, natural
rights, Enlightenment notions of truth and the foregrounding of logic
over rhetoric as a bulwark against the will to power — need to be
deconstructed and then de-legitimized. Identity politics
must replace individual autonomy, with the various factions within
identity groups vying for what will become that group’s sanctioned
narrative (with the losers in that battle cast out as inauthentic, or
race-traitors, or sufferers of false consciousness, etc.); natural
rights need be “separated” from the secular rights that are then decided
upon by the ruling class; truth
must always be “contingent,” subject to perspective and narrative frame
for its relative rhetorical power, and never absolute; interpretation
becomes such that the message of an individual becomes the property of
an “interpretive community” whose own intentions then take precedence over the intentions of the individual — and are allowed moreover to determine the intentions of that individual.

To beat back the progressive agenda is to beat back the kernel
assumptions of leftism itself — to reaffirm the very principles upon
which this country was founded, and which the left has been steadily
hoping to erode through an institutional takeover of language, be the
offshoot of such a linguistic coup the idea of a “living Constitution”
or identity politics as reinforced by such benign terms as “diversity”
and “multiculturalism.

Machiavelli, The Prince -

rws — Sat, 01 May 2010 05:33:00 +0000

Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised.

Jonah Goldberg -

rws — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:15:00 +0000

Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore is defined as the enemy.

Ralph Waldo Emerson -

rws — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 06:24:00 +0000

Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect.

P.J. O’Rourke -

rws — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:13:00 +0000

Before totalitarianism had ever been tried, Adam Smith was prescient in his scorn for it:
“The man of system [...] is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it.[...] He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.”

Barbed wire always seems to be needed to keep the chessmen on their squares.

Note to self -

rws — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:53:00 +0000

Remember to read between the lines.

Adolph Hitler -

rws — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:42:00 +0000

It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole … that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual… By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community…