Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to stay in school forever

Andrew Coyne in the National Post perfectly illustrates the transcendental degeneration of morality that accompanies the most junior explorations of mainstream media and Canadian high school and university experiences in the absence of a more compelling and upright parental influence — to which I can attest from my own history:

At some point in his first or second year, the average undergraduate comes to a dreadful, shocking, thrilling, intoxicating realization: Everything I was taught to believe until now is a lie. We're not the good guys. We're the bad guys: the West, white people, my parents, whatever. Grasping this insight is the key to enlightenment, and enlightenment is the key to, among other things, pulling chicks. […]

The reflex oppositionism of so much of the left, its instant identification with whoever or whatever is most hostile to the society of which it is a part, most closely resembles that of the undergraduate. It is a badge, a pose, a lifestyle, an arrangement of reality that is pleasing to believe, a reminder to the believer of the thrid eye of enlightenment that is his gift.
Fortunately, most of us are compelled eventually to make a living in the world and accommodate reality to make a fair game of it, but a vocal minority remain wedded to the scotching of wealth for their subsistence. The permanent infantilization of political understanding is the result of leaving a good portion of the population in possession of the spoils of massive subsidization of academics, professional political lobby groups and all other forms of permanent government dependency.

30 comments:

Ayn Steyn said...

Good article by Andrew Coyne.

He goes on to write: "But perhaps there was something else at work. A refusal to make moral judgments, to distinguish between the merely flawed and the truly evil, may in time lead to an inability to do so.

Ayn Rand sums up this attitude—and its consequences—perfectly in an essay titled "Altruism as Appeasement" in The Voice of Reason. A must read.

When morality becomes inconsequential, moral cowardice sets in and the thugs are ready to take over. And we all know that liberals love their thugs.

Anonymous said...

What infantile nonsense. And who is Ayn Rand but the queen of the adolescently stunted? Where do you pile of idiots think your welath comes from? Do you really think you created it all yourself? Where is the morality in killing tens of thousands of Iraqis for oil? But, of course, morality is subjective, isn't it? Whatever "feels" good to you and your little minds must therefore be moral while any questioning makes you feel bad and therefore must be "immoral".

Coyne is the perfect columnist for ditto-heads looking to reinforce their own childish notions of "me, me, me" while pretending their wealth and comfort is all self-generated and they have never, ever benefited from government largesse or the suffering of others.

Bunch of babies looking for a wet nurse to tell them "it's okay to be greedy little pricks without any social conscience or sense of responsibility to anyone or anything beyond your own stunted egos".

Pietr said...

But you'll set us straight, right?
You must be suffering from some sort of god-head delusion.
I urge you to see a doctor.
Soon.

Anonymous said...

Ouch! That taught me. With the quick retort and sharp wit I can only surmise you must be the leader of this group of masturbators.

Pietr said...

We're masturbators?
Why do you come here then?
Because you enjoy watching?

Joe Molnar said...

Let me guess, 'Anonymous' works in 'editorial' at the London Free press!

Anonymous said...

The intellectual elite of London's "Me! Oh, me! Me! Meeee!" movement has set me straight. I have been humbled by the revolutionary equivalent of a neutron bomb: they want to leave the structure unscathed put replace the snouts in the trough with their own. Snort, snort.

I imagine you would all run with your tails stuffed tightly between your legs to the comfort of Ayn Rand and her cheap, kowtowing-to-the-mandarins-of-power philosophy should real libertarians ever arise to upset your intellectual circle jerks.

Libertarianism is more than an intellectual framework for priveleged spoiled brats with an unearned sense of entitlement.

Al said...

I didn't know Rand cowtowed to power! I thought she thought everyone should be recognized for their contribution. But then, if one doesn't make a contribution??----anxiety can certainly cause an angry response.

MapMaster said...

So many fabulous made-up mischaracterizations, so little time! At best, an aspiring Free Press editorialist I think, although as typically edifying as a real one. I suppose it could be Joe Belanger, though… More likely just a bored AltLondoner.

they want to leave the structure unscathed put replace the snouts in the trough with their own…

priveleged spoiled brats with an unearned sense of entitlement


Bravo! These must be the most thoroughly dreamt-up bizarre assertions that I've ever come across in any blog. How can one defend himself from such libellous and nonsensical deductions when they masquerade as inductions from specifics that do not exist? Just one example would not suffice, but it would be at least considerate. And the forced entry of the idea of libertarianism into the thread is a mighty non sequitur — it fits into no genuine context present here at all. I suspect the commenter doesn't even know what libertarianism is, let alone a "real" libertarian, whatever that is.

One more remark, if I may, about the original anonymous comment:

Morality is not subjective. Questioning isn't immoral, but coming to immoral conclusions is. Whatever "feels" good to you and your little minds must therefore be moral… You're rather proving Coyne's point.

As for the rest, utter tripe and canards.

Anonymous said...

And the great MapMasturbator comes to the fore to defend his little bit of turf. Hurray! Brave Sir.

mischaracterizations insdeed! The very thing you traffic in. Without them you would have nothing at all to say.

Morality is entirely subjective. The United States does not invade Iraq to seize and control resources but to "liberate its people". Morality is defined by the observer. To First Nations the occupiers in Caledonia may be heros winning back just a little piece of what has been lost while to you, they may be criminals.

Even the very basis of moral code in our civilization is subjective. Nat Turner led the only slave rebellion ever in the United States. He and his followers found the moral basis and the inspiration for their violent rebellion in the very self-same bible their oppressors were using to justify slavery and the abuses inflicted upon their "property".

To argue morality is not subjective requires a simplistic world view and little understanding of how real issues are framed for public debate and consumption.

It is the denizens of this little site who pontificate and hold court like little Richie Riches over the rest of the world who do not understand Libertarianism. Like Rand you would lick the feet of your masters for bones tossed your way. Unlike Rand who knew her masters where industrialists and the US aristicracy, your masters are columnists, mere scribes, like Coyne and Steyn.

But I suppose for those of you here to be the pet of the power elite being paid to write the same gibberish as Coyne, mischaracterizations as you might call his stock in trade, would be reward enough.

MapMaster said...

The "public debate and consumption" of issues is certainly captive to subjectivity, as are claims to morality, but right and wrong themselves are not and cannot be. Or are you suggesting that slavers and emancipators are equally moral, immoral or amoral, or that it doesn't matter at all? Your chancy surrender of morality to subjectivity is a recipe for things to get settled by the brute force of thugs who take advantage of your equivocation.

Anonymous said...

Right and wrong are and can be. I am reading today of the devastating environmental damage wrought by the Israeli bombing of a Lebanese power station. The environmenatal damage is wrong, but what of the bombing itself? Right or wrong? That might depend on if you accept Israel's contention that it was acting in self-defence and whether you do accept that contention, or not, will usually depend on what side of the Israeli/Arab divide you find yourself.

In our civilized society right and wrong is subject to brute force. We give the state a monopoly on coercive violence and the media serves the state. So state violence is always justified or portrayed in a context that mitigates the requirement to resort to violence while violence by individuals or groups is always wrong no matter the motivation or context.

Morality, like history, belongs to the victor or the stronger. Whenever a father beats his son it is because his son made him do it. Likewise, whenever the state fires on a man protecting his land it is because the rule of law must be enforced and the validity of the reason(s) the man chose to defend his land is never important in the narrative that follows nor is the fairness of the law being enforced or the hardship inherent in that law.

When the FBI invaded Waco, the media focused on the David Koresh portraying him as a lunatic. Was he? He may have been but even if he was did all in that compound deserve their fate? No FBI or justice department official was ever accused of a crime and thus never faced a trial nor conviction.

There is no question of the morality of the FBI action in mainstream discourse as there is no question of the bravery and the use of violence by the FBI in enforcing the law. Only a number of fringe groups have questioned the morality of the action and they are dismissed as lunatics and militiamen (also lunatics) leaving the question of morality answered by popular discourse. That is to say, it is not a question.

Mike said...

The portrayals and foci on this internet web-site are shockingly ignorant of the power of the dominant discourse to shape the so-called facts of so-called reality.

Does no one here realize that no less a mind than Aristotle's understood that light objects fall to earth faster than heavier objects? Obviously your opinion on this matter depends on which side of the Leaning Tower you were born.

For centuries, this belief was justified and portrayed as true, and those who believed the opposite were portrayed as wrong. Do you accept this plain subjective fact, or will you continue to jack it in your denial of the history handed down to us by the mighty victors of the Gravity Wars? That seed will fall on stony ground indeed, for it has been salted by the force, violence, and strong beliefs of the power structure (whose boots you doubtless hasten to lick) that holds Earth's gravitational pull as overwhelmingly dominant in the discursive system of life on the text of this planet.

No person living in the era before that supposed guy supposedly did his supposed experiment ever faced contradiction by the authorities of the day. No one ever failed out of any school of natural philosophy for maintaining that a released pebble hangs in the air for longer than a released boulder. When the structure of oppression realized that it was to its obvious structural advantage to redelineate the beliefs of society to hold Earth's pull as dominant, in metaphorical homage to the unipolar authority of that power structure, the discourse changed.

Pleasure yourself all you like; it will not change this fact. Only the popular discourse, shaped by televisions, teachers, and truncheons can change it.

George W. Bush is the worst president of my lifetime.

Honey Pot said...

...hmmmm, better give some clarification to the mob..... so basically...if you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.

Pietr said...

Meanwhile, back at the corral...
maybe Coyne's 'undergrads' just haven't sold out yet?
My experience of college was that all the little bastards were looking to sell out as cheaply and miserably as they could,especially to each other; when they finally learned to sell out to themselves, they did so without conscience, without honour, without happiness; in other words, they tried selling out to all the shit first, then managed to blame the world for a form of selfishness that gives it a bad name.

Pietr said...

And of course, Libertarianism is really for Communists.
But Ayn Rand isn't for halfwits.

MapMaster said...

Indeed, Sorehead, the anonymous commenter regards morality as the product of the collective zeitgeist. As soon as the ratings go up, the Jews get it! If an individual isn't in possession of morals, they're not going to be in possession of anything — hence, the Communist.

I had earlier considered responding to some of the original outlandish assertions, but these comments of his — or hers — demonstrates that it would have been a waste of time.

Butch McLarty said...

Coyne is a boring blockhead of a columnist. I subscribe to the National Post and avoid him like used diapers because he's so linear and full of shit. Talk about purple prose!

At least Don Martin has some style, some panache and some valid insights. Mark Steyn was a whack-job, but an entertaining whack-job. Colby Cash is another boring peon and shameless apologist for the pro-Israel drivel churned out constantly by the Post.

Conrad Black's occasional columns are pure flatulence from a dying dinosaur who couldn't see the writing on the wall due to his outrageous arrogance. And yet he prides himself on being a bit of a military strategist. Hilarious. Now the whiny SOB wants his Canadian citizenship back so when he gets thrown into the can he can relax in Canuckistan's cushiest Club-Fed Hilarious. What a friggin' wanker "Lord" Tubby is. Clearly the Emperor has no clothes and soon, he'll have no pot to piss in. Looks good at the spoiled, self-righteous blowhard.

Where's ruby-lipped Kimmy Ainslie when you need him? Here Kimmy Kimmy Kimmy ....

Lisa said...

Butch;

Yawn. Your point, aside from asserting your preference of red over all other colours?

Anonymous said...

Oh, dear, MapMasturbator, I was almost giving you credit for having a head as opposed to giving head to the likes of Coyne.

You entirely fail to grasp both the argument and the reality. Morality is a construct. The Ten Commandments says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and everyone will agree that killig is wrong until some heinous crime is committed and people like you begin frothing at the mouth for the death penalty. But what of the immorality of taking a life? Ah, no worries, we will rationalize that into a neat and tidy soundbite ready for consumption.

You say "as soon as the ratings go up, the Jews get it!" Well, yes. You demonstrate this very same reality on your web site as you buy into the demonization of Islam. So writers, columinsts, will promote brown, Islamic people as a threat to "our way of life", "our civiization", "our self-delusion", and you will join the rabid chorus seeking them to be identified and marginalized and their very lives discounted in value.

You say you have morals and you will convince yourself your morals are superior to those of others who do not share your world view and thus you are justified in being superior, in being a little prince upon a throne of pontification, throwing bric-brats or worse.

What humans have that is far more valuable than the construct of "morals" and that offers a much truer guide to right and wrong is conscience. But when others argue we ought to follow our conscience, your panty-waist supporters will dismiss them as socialists, or communists, or homosexual sympathisers, or liberals, or self-haters, or whoever your media masters decide should be demonized this week.

You are the true useful idiots in that you follow blindly along an idelogical and dogmatic path laid out by others for their own purpose and benefit. You lack critical thinking or honest questioning. They tell you to bend over and you present yourself.

Pathetic, really.

Pietr said...

Map,'anonymouse' is clearly a Christian who should be thrown to the lions.
Apparently a murderer remains a human being after his crime, but we are less than human for punishing him.
Fucking unbelievable crap.

Butch McLarty said...

Lisa, the point (other than the pointy end of the dunce cap on your majestic noggin) is that Andrew Coyne is a boring, pathetic piece of shit of a columnist.

Ditto for NP columnist Colby Cash, Conrad Black and the vast majority of the other NP columnists. Dare I mention Barbara Kay, who, incidentally, is an aquaintance of mine from Montreal. Nice gal, piss pauvre writer.

The only reason that she even appears in the NP is because her son, Jonathan Kay, is the editorial supremo. Mommy gets the job because her son wants her to pick up a pay cheque every two weeks. She's a pathetic columnist who should stick to her rummage sales and tea parties in Westmount.

The NP is full of such drivelists who are given a so-called national forum due to nepotism and incompetence.

And yet in this fogged-up forum the NP and its columnists are revered as Gods.

I say bring back Steyn (but he'll have none of it). He is an entertaining wordsmith even though he's an outrageous lunatic. But he's funny. Most bona fide lunatics are. Anybody that takes Steyn's world view seriously though is overdue for a brain transplant. The guy's the mondern-day equivalent of Alfred E. Newman of MAD magazine.

But he's got that pissy pants Coyne beat all to hell, both in style and content. Coyne's little more than an ambitious copy boy who learned how to blow his boss by aping his views to get a head.

As I said before, where's little Kimmy Ainslie when you need him. Here Kimmy Kimmy Kimmy. Time to start a new political party, isn't it? Reactivate the Rhinos, Kimmy, you'd have more luck and credibility.

Lisa said...

Butch;

So, what you are saying is you don't like Coyne, or Steyn, and other NP columnists. Fine, don't read them.

And what does Kim Ainslie have to do with the The London Fog or the National Post for that matter?

Butch McLarty said...

Lisa dearest, what part of English don't you understand?

I don't read Andrew Coyne anymore, that's correct. This thread is about one of Coyne's boring musing of no consequence. I tried reading his inane drivel over the years and now just skip over it. Don't give it the time of day. Purple prose at its worst. The NP should tape to two aspirins on every one of his columns with the line, "Here take two of these and try to slog your way through this empty-headed shit."

George Jonas, now there's another work of art. I've met him a couple of times as well. My nickname for him (to his face) is Count Vorga because he alwasys looks like he's down a couple of pints. But I guess after marrying Babs Amiel, anybody would look like they've had the calcium sucked right out of their bones. He once told me that she could...er...a...remove, right, that's the word, remove the chrome off a trailer hitch.

I like reading Steyn to get a laugh. The man's a professional clown and I enjoy talented clowns of all political stripes.

I also like political columnist Don Martin. He's plugged in and witty. I enjoy his insights and his writing style. He's a pleasure to read.

Regarding Kim Ainslie, he's been promoted on here as well with his half-baked nonsense about "Smart Growth." Real cool cat that Kimmy. Too cool for the CATO institute, apparently.

Kimmy once tried to tell me by e-mail that the Canadian Press Style Book was written by communists. And he was serious! And the man's full of himself. And I'm not just basing it on his Wikipedia vanity page that he wrote.

OK, Kimmy, whatever you say pal. Just park your space ship over there, come in the back door and lie down at the couch near the wet towels. An attendant will be with you in a minute.

But enough about me. Who's your favourite nutter columnist Lisa, and why?

Lisa said...

Why, you Butch are my favorite nutter columnist. But it is time for you to move along to other pastures more sympathetic to your bleatings. I don't much care whether you prefer Sheila Copps over Steyn or Jonas or Lisa of the London Fog. Spend your dollar as you choose and the rest of with continue to do the same.

As for Mr. Ainslie, the London Fog has referenced his writings on but two occasions in the three years this blog has been in existence.

Butch McLarty said...

You don't care which columnists I enjoy. Christ, that's a surprise.

It's apparent from the constant navel-gazing around here that the only thing you and your cronies do care about is the silly little circle jerk you call commentary and discussion.

And thanks for your permission to buy whatever newspapers I want. Now we can all go back to sleep.

Nutjobs on the right unite!

Lisa said...

I also don't care whether you prefer apples to oranges. Add it to my don't care about list.

Shall I prepare a recommended book list for you?

Sweet dreams Bully.

Mike said...

Anonymous,

Two things.

First, the commandment is properly rendered "Thou shalt not murder".

Secondly, this racism driveby smear:

So writers, columinsts, will promote brown, Islamic people as a threat to "our way of life",

has no basis in anything on this website. I assume the others scanned through the standard boilerplate as rapidly as I myself did and missed it.

Comment all you like, but future comments to this effect will be deleted unless they also contain citations.

Butch McLarty said...

Right on, Butchie-baby! I haven't come across you online since you ratted out lard-ass Lord Tubby to Tweedy Browne!

That goombah is going down!

Mike said...

Hey Mike, have you ever seen a more incompetent attempt at sock puppetry than that last comment from Butch?

No indeed, I haven't! Even "Me-again" Walker Williams knew enough to use different names when she's talking to herself.

You've got that right, you super-genius! I really dug your last posts! When do you think you'll do the next "Dink Blog"? Those are hilarious!

Thanks!