Sunday, October 25, 2015

The Hubris in Leftist Ideologies Will Kill Us All

Wrong place of birth, wrong papers, wrong accent
“Your presence here is unacceptable accident“
They turn backs on them, puppetry level’s excellent
They’re spitting lies in their eyes and never hesitate

You know what I’m saying, it’s time to spare your prayers
They look the other way for terrorists, smugglers and slavers
But if you’re running for your life, trying to escape the slaughter
They’ll let your wife die and feast on your sons and daughters

Poison the water, the feast of legalized murder
Their lies about human rights don’t cost a quarter
They bomb your home, let the beast roam, close the border
And feed the world another tale by double-tongued reporter

Forward to the past, Can I ask? Do you remember
How the allies were sending people back to gas chamber?
Beware the beast, at least you know what to expect
The circle closes and the history repeats itself

Hook 2x:
Papers, please! They get you on your knees
Straight face, race to the death, Deaf to your pleas
Who’s the real illegal people, who’s the real disease?
We’re all immigrants, We're all refugees.

The circle closes and the history repeats itself
Like 80 years ago abandoning those to the death
Who happened to be born on the wrong side of the fence
Ignoring obvious atrocities and cries for help

Not all was apathy - fallacy, lost humanity
Progressive wanna-be society begets another malady
No remedy, humanitarian calamity
another people denied the right to live with vanity

Another Human race catastrophe,
Another instance of entitled masses showing lack of empathy
Authorities are waging war, you people lie in idleness
Refuse to take responsibility for leaders' violence

Communities of hypocrites reveal their rotten values
“Civilized world” devoid of basic principles of kindness
Close minded, close the borders: entry denied
The price of economic comfort is their innocent lives

Hook 2x:
Papers, please! They get you on your knees
Straight face, race to the death, Deaf to your pleas
Who’s the real illegal people, who’s the real disease?
We’re all immigrants, We're all refugees.

Face the facts, no thanks, "Your passport lacks stamps
Please go back for war, torture and the death camps"
Join the ranks, labeled as illegal people
Cursed by those who suck blood from golden calf’s nipple

Broken families, tragedies, who the devil is
They put another spiked wall on the land they've seized
Barbed wire, peace expires, lost evidence
Infection of the whole soul, unknown genesis


FreeThinke said...

________ TO THIS WE'VE COME ________

To this we’ve come,
That men withhold the world from men
No ship, no shore for him who drowns at sea,
No home nor grave for him who dies on land.

To this we’ve come,
That man be born a stranger upon God’s Earth
That he be chosen without a chance for choice;
That he be hunted without the hope of refuge.
To this we’ve come. To this we’ve come.
And you, you too shall weep
If to men not to God we now must pray

What is your name? Occupation? Age?
"Thirty three?"

I come here for help, and all you give me is
Papers! –– Papers! –– P-A-P-E-R-S!
My mother is dead, my child is dying ...

What is your name? Occupation? Age?
"Still young!"

Tell me, Secretary, tell me, who are these men?
If to them not to God we now must pray
Tell me, Secretary, tell me:
Who are these dark archangels?
Will they be conquered?
Will they be doomed?

Tell me, Secretary, tell me.
Has anyone ever seen –– The Consul?
Does he move? Does he breathe?
Does he speak?

Is there one, anyone behind those doors
To whom the heart can still be explained?
Is there one anyone who still may care?

Oh, the day will come I know
When our hearts aflame
Will burn your paper chains

Warn the Consul, Secretary, warn him.
That day shall come that neither ink nor seal
Shall cage our souls.
That day will come.
That day will come.

~ Gian Carlo Menotti - The Consul

FreeThinke said...

Here is a link to the 1960 television broadcast of the above scene from The Consul with Patricia Neway, who created the role of Magda Sorel when it first appeared in 1950.


I highly recommend it. One of the most riveting, compelling, heart-wrenching scenes in the history of opera and theater, and as powerful and eloquent indictment of totalitarian bureaucracy as one could ever hope to find.

The great American soprano, Eileen Farrell, recorded it too. Her memorable interpretation is electrifying. Comparisins are odious. Both versions, while different, have equal merit.

Jersey McJones said...

Wait a minute...

What the hell do you mean by "The Hubris in Leftist Ideologies Will Kill Us All?"


Joe Conservative said...

Exactly what it says. A lifeboat can only hold a limited number of people. If you help too many others in, it sinks, too.

The Left cries for sustainability, then curse the only ethics which make it possible.

FreeThinke said...

Hey, Jersey, have YOU ever seen The Consul?

You'd get a helluva lot smarter very fast if you did.

FreeThinke said...

Psalm 94 (KJV)

The Lord Will Not Forget His People 1 O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself. 2 Lift up thyself, thou judge of the earth: render a reward to the proud.

3 LORD, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph? 4 How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves? 5 They break in pieces thy people, O LORD, and afflict thine heritage. 6 They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless. 7 Yet they say, The LORD shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it. 8 Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? 9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? 10 He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?

11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. 12 Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law; 13 That thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked. 14 For the LORD will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance. 15 But judgment shall return unto righteousness: and all the upright in heart shall follow it. 16 Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity? 17 Unless the LORD had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence. 18 When I said, My foot slippeth; thy mercy, O LORD, held me up. 19 In the multitude of my thoughts within me thy comforts delight my soul.

20 Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? 21 They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood. 22 But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge. 23 And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the LORD our God shall cut them off.

Gert said...

FreeThinke, the antisemitic idiot who thinks he can explain the world by means of a conspiracy theory ('Cultural Marxism')... lecturing others.

FT is US's ConservaWorld's knownothingness personified. Now with sock puppets thrown in, from what I see elsewhere.

Joe Conservative said...

w/o an imaginary world to play in (Dasein), every Ego would be homeless.

Nietzsche, "Will to Power" (480)

480 (March-June 1888)

There exists neither "spirit," nor reason, nor thinking, nor consciousness, nor soul, nor will, nor truth: all are fictions that are of no use. There is no guestion of "subject and object," but of a particular species of animal that can prosper only through a certain relative rightness; above all, regularity of its perceptions (so that it can accumulate experience) --

Knowledge works as a tool of power. Hence it is plain that it increases with every increase of power--

The meaning of "knowledge": here, as in the case of "good" or "beautiful", the concept is to be regarded in a strict and narrow anthropocentric and biological sense. In order for a particular species to maintain itself and increase its power, its conception of reality must comprehend enough of the calculable and constant for it to base a scheme of behavior on it. The utility of preservation --not some abstract-theoretical need not to be deceived--stands as the motive behind the development of the organs of knowledge--they develop in such a way that their observations suffice for our preservation. In other words: the measure of the desire for knowledge depends upon the measure to which the will to power grows in a species: a species grasps a certain amount of reality in order to become master of it, in order to press it into service.

3. Belief in the "Ego." The Subject

Joe Conservative said...

483 (1885)

Through thought the ego is posited; but hitherto one believed as ordinary people do, that in "I think" there was something of immediate certainty, and that this "I" was the given cause of thought, from which by analogy we understood all other causal relationships. However habitual and indispensable this fiction may have become by now--that in itself proves nothing against its imaginary origin: a belief can be a condition of life and nonetheless be false.

487 (1883-1886)

Must all philosophy not ultimately bring to light the preconditions upon which the process of reason depends?--our belief in the "ego" as a substance, as the sole reality from which we ascribe reality to things in general? The oldest "realism" at last comes to light: at the same time that the entire religious history of mankind is recognized as the history of the soul superstition. Here we come to a limit: our thinking itself involves this belief (with its distinction of substance, accident; deed, doer, etc.); to let it go means: being no longer able to think .

But that a belief, however necessary it may be for the preservation of a species, has nothing to do with truth, one knows from the fact that, e.g., we have to believe in time, space, and motion, without feeling compelled to grant them absolute reality.

Joe Conservative said...

488 (Spring-Fall 1887)

Psychological derivation of our belief in reason. --The concept "reality", "being", is taken from our feeling of the "subject".

"The subject": interpreted from within ourselves, so that the ego counts as a substance, as the cause of all deeds, as a doer.

The logical-metaphysical postulates, the belief in substance, accident, attribute, etc., derive their convincing force from our habit of regarding all our deeds as conseguences of our will--so that the ego, as substance, does not vanish in the multiplicity of change. --But there is no such thing as will.--

We have no categories at all that permit us to distinguish a "world in itself" from a "world of appearance." All our categories of reason are of sensual origin: derived from the empirical world. "The soul", "the ego"--the history of these concepts shows that here, too, the oldest distinction ("breath", "life")--

If there is nothing material, there is also nothing immaterial. The concept no longer contains anything.

No subject "atoms". The sphere of a subject constantly growing or decreasing, the center of the system constantly shifting; in cases where it cannot organize the appropriate mass, it breaks into two parts. On the other hand, it can transform a weaker subject into its functionary without destroying it, and to a certain degree form a new unity with it. No "substance", rather something that in itself strives after greater strength, and that wants to "preserve" itself only indirectly (it wants to surpass itself--) .

Joe Conservative said...

517 (Spring-Fall 1887)

In order to think and infer it is necessary to assume beings: logic handles only formulas for what remains the same. That is why this assumption would not be proof of reality: "beings" are part of our perspective. The "ego" as a being (--not affected by becoming and development ) .

The fictitious world of subject, substance, "reason" etc., is needed--: there is in us a power to order, simplify, falsify, artificially distinguish. "Truth" is the will to be master over the multiplicity of sensations : --to classify phenomena into definite categories. In this we start from a belief in the "in-itself" of things (we take phenomena as real ) .

The character of the world in a state of becoming as incapable of formulation, as "false," as "'self-contradictory." Knowledge and becoming exclude one another. Consequently, "knowledge" must be something else: there must first of all be a will to make knowable, a kind of becoming must itself create the deception of beings.

518 (1885-1886)

If our "ego" is for us the sole being, after the model of which we fashion and understand all being: very well! Then there would be very much room to doubt whether what we have here is not a perspective illusion--an apparent unity that encloses everything like a horizon. The evidence of the body reveals a tremendous multiplicity; it is allowable, for purposes of method, to employ the more easily studied, richer phenomena as evidence for the understanding of the poorer. Finally: supposing everything is becoming, then knowledge is possible only on the basis of belief in being.

Joe Conservative said...

519 (1883-1888)

If there "is only one being, the ego" and all other "being" is fashioned after its model--if, finally, belief in the "ego" stands or falls with belief in logic, i. e., the metaphysical truth of the categories of reason; if, on the other hand, the ego proves to be something in a state of becoming: then--

533 (Spring-Fall 1887)

Logical certainty, transparency, as criterion of truth ("omncillud verum est, guod clare et distincte percipitur." Descartes) : with that, the mechanical hypothesis concerning the world is desired and credible. But this is a crude confusion: like simplex sigillum veri. How does one know that the real nature of things stands in this relation to our intellect ?--Could it not be otherwise? that it is the hypothesis that gives the intellect the greatest feeling of power and security, that is most preferred, valued and conseguently characterized as true?--The intellect posits its freest and strongest capacity and capability as criterion of the most valuable, conseguently of the true—

"True": from the standpoint of feeling--: that which excites the feeling most strongly ("ego");

from the standpoint of thought--: that which gives thought the greatest feeling of strength;

from the standpoint of touch, seeing, hearing--: that which calls for the greatest resistance.

Thus it is the highest degrees of performance that awaken belief in the "truth," that is to say reality, of the object. The feeling of strength, of struggle, of resistance convinces us that there is something that is here being resisted.

Joe Conservative said...

574 (1883-1888)

Senselessness of all metaphysics as the derivation of the conditioned from the unconditioned.

It is in the nature of thinking that it thinks of and invents the unconditioned as an adjunct to the conditioned; just as it thought of and invented the "ego" as an adjunct to the multiplicity of its processes; it measures the world according to magnitudes posited by itself--such fundamental fictions as "the unconditional" , "ends and means' ' , "things", "substances", logical laws, numbers and forms.

There would be nothing that could be called knowledge if thought did not first re-form the world in this way into "things", into what is self- identical. Only because there is thought is there untruth.

Thought cannot be derived, any more than sensations can be; but that does not mean that its primordiality or "being-in-itself " has been proved! all that is established is that we cannot get beyond it, because we have nothing but thought and sensation.

581 (Spring-Fall 1887)

Being and becoming . --"Reason" , evolved on a sensualistic basis, on the prejudices of the senses, i. e., in the belief in the truth of the judgments of the senses.

"Being" as universalization of the concept "life" (breathing), "having a soul", "willing, effecting," "becoming".

The antithesis is: "not to have a soul," "not to become," "not to will." Therefore: "being" is not the antithesis of non-being, appearance, nor even of the dead (for only something that can live can be dead) .

The "soul," the "ego" posited as primeval fact, and introduced everywhere where there is any becoming.

Joe Conservative said...


FreeThinke said...

I appreciate your encouraging Mr. Meyer to post eloquent examples of typical Leftist Hubris here, Farmer John. The sneering, condescending, contemptuous attitude of these conceited individuals and the sheer, unmitigated nastiness of leftists in general do more to make the case for Conservative-Libertarians than any straightforward, carefully considered presentation of pro-Conservative-Libertarian ideas and values possibly could.

A prime example of this arrogant, viciously presumptuous attitude occurred throughout the last Wednesday's debate on CNBC among the numerous Republican candidates for the GOP presidential nomination. The so-called moderators of whom Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick, and John Harwood led the pack were obviously set up not to moderate the proceedings, but to act as INQUISITORS in virtual KANGAROO COURT instead. Their flagrantly biased performance as leftist-activists posing as “journalists” was as disgraceful and inappropriate as it was obnoxious.

[NOTE: re BECKY QUICK The astonishing American correspondent recently working as a co-anchor for CNBC’s show Squawk Box Becky Quick was born on July 18, 1972 was named Rebecca Quick by birth. She belongs to American nationality and Jewish ethnicity. She was born and raised by her proud parents in Indiana, Texas. Her father was a geologist and worked in an oil production named “booms”. She is the eldest among her siblings and has three younger brothers. The family ultimately settled in Medford, New Jersey. - See more at:]

I KNEW la QUiCK was Jewish right away. It was written all over her. I looked it up just to be sure, and of course I was correct. Now HOW could I POSSiBLY have KNOWN that? WHAT gave it away?

CARL QUINTANILLA, though born in Michigan, is obviously of Hispanic origin. There’s nothing like an “educated” member of a troubled, supposedly downtrodden minority to make a first-rate LEFTIST ATTACK DOG journalist.

JOHN HARWOOD’s father was a prominent journalist in Louisville, Kentucky. Unfortunately journalists are by nature a dissident, muckraking, generally nettlesome lot. If that were not so, why would both Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson have had them MUZZLED? Harwood has obviously been conditioned from birth to be a leftist.


Discussing House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s surprising primary loss, on Friday’s Washington Week on PBS, John Harwood, chief Washington correspondent for CNBC, a regular on NBC and MSNBC, and a political writer for the New York Times, blamed hostility to Jews in Cantor’s “very rural conservative southern district.”
“Eric Cantor is a Jewish Republican. This is a very rural conservative southern district where that is not a -- you don’t have a lot of Jewish members of Congress from the South.” ... Harwood first forwarded his theory on Wednesday morning’s Squawk Box on CNBC, where he cited Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report: “He said he thought the fact that Eric Cantor is Jewish played a role in this very conservative district.” - See more at:

Don't you see how the left issues charges of "anti-Semitism" whenever and wherever possible in order to smear and discredit anyone who opposes the LEFTIST agenda. That the vast majority of Jews are in fact unabashed, loudly outspoken advocates of LEFTIST policies quite naturally makes Conservatives ripe for charges of "anti-Semitism." These charges, THEMSELVES, are probably more responsible for generating suspicion and resentment of Jews in general than anything else. In this regard lamenting, loudmouthed, forever ACCUSATORY Jews are their tribes' worst enemies.

Inspector AIPac said...

Oy Vey!

-FJ said...

The guy removed his clip! It was an excerpt from this, from 14:10 to end.

FreeThinke said...

Well, all right, but to put it in the plainest possible Gutter English:

I'm God-damned fucking sick and tired of being expected in the names of DECENCY and FAIRNESS to permit myself to be the brunt of ONE-WAY RUDENESS, INSOLENCE and INTOLERANCE.

The TYRANNISTS, who comprise the Left, feed us a steady diet of SHIT, and expect us always to SMILE and at least PRETEND we LIKE it. Well, I won't eat it, and I don't HAVE to pretend to LIKE it for anybody's sake. FUCK the bastards!

Mr. Meyer can take his own shit, and stuff it back up his foul-smelling, ill-tempered ass, because I refuse to accept even one ATOM of excrement from the likes of a vain, conceited, puffed up, self-righteous PRICK like HIM.

[PS: I just can't WAIT to see this copied and pasted all over the liberal blogosphere as an example of what a poor sport and crude, boorish, ill-tempered villain I am. The more pompous, loudmouthed PHARISEES of Mr. Myer's filthy, detestable ilk express their dislike, disapproval and condemnation of ME, the higher my levels of Self Esteem are apt to rise.]

If Mr. Myer LIKED me, I'd feel debased, and unclean as well as deeply insulted.

Mrs. Grundy said...

Tell us how you REALLY feel, FT! ;)

FreeThinke said...

If I ever get time, I shall. ;-)

Stay tuned.

beamish said...

I don't want to say FT hates Gert, but he'd unplug his life support to charge his cell phone....

Thersites said...

I believe it.

convergentsum said...

On the other hand, Gert seems to me like a decent sort of chap, and I agree with him that FT frequently adopts a lecturing tone, often propagates anti-semitic memes, and habitually leans on cultural Marxism to explain everything bad that's ever happened over the last century. I can't see how any of those points could be contested; so I take it you disagree with Gert that the first is unjustifiable given the latter two? Or you simply object to him being "mean" about FT?
None of my business, but I confess to a detached curiosity - why are you so fond of / loyal to each other?

Thersites said...

FT and I are very simpatico. We both love "high" cultures, especially the European. That doesn't mean we are anti-Semitic. It simply means, we can recognize what is European, and what is not. Yes, Marx was very European, but his was not "high" culture. You have to be able to recognize the distinction between high-low culture. I'm a bit more of a "bastard" than FT when it comes to an appreciation of "low" culture, and FT is often critical of m for it. That doesn't mean I find him "anti"- middle-brow.

Thersites said...

His (FTs) in an exhortation to "high" culture. Mine is an exhortation to the petit bourgeois *middle). I don't "hate" the proletariate/working class (low). I just find it a "poor" model for dominating and ruling a greater society.

Thersites said...

ps - I like Gert, too. I disagree with him "politically", but I like him.

convergentsum said...

Thanks. Myself, I admire and sometimes aspire to Clive James' disdain for those distinctions. I vaguely recall you telling me about high vs low in terms of the four discourses - is this the sense you are using the terms here?

Thersites said...

Not exactly. In this case, I'm making the distinction between "master morality" and "slave morality"... it's a bit more Nietzschean/ old world. If you have read Nietzsche's "On the Future of Our Educational Institutions" you would pick up upon how the "University Discourse" differs from the Master discourse, and in Nietzsche's contempt for "Journalism", recognize that "culture" (and science) is not something best served by "hourly wage-earners" (a proletariate). You need an independent "aristocracy" (master-class) undistracted by what Swift would demeaningly call "Grub Street" authors.

Thersites said...

Even Dylan is coming around to a recogniziton that "low" (slave morality) culture leaves a society "wanting"...

beamish said...

I just go with the idea that PEOPLE **are** the "means of production" and hold those bantering about who should own them in great suspicion.

Thersites said...

Excellent point, beamish!

Thersites said...

Perhaps if we no longer "worked for others" and "owned ourselves" we could take some satisfaction from a days'work. But then, all that talk about "government safety nets" gets in the way...

Thersites said...

Of course, we've all got to pledge fielty to some-one higher up the food chain, regardless. The hired-hand to the free farmer, the free-holder to the Earl... the Earl to the King... the King to his "gods". Because some idiot is always breeding in the wings, ready to send an invading immigrant horde your way.

beamish said...

I've been a "boss." It ain't fun.

beamish said...

The long hours and ineligibility for overtime pay aren't worth the gymnastics involved in firing the incompetent in a "politically correct" process. ;) I'm comfy being a sergeant when the generals NEED the captain to shine ;)

beamish said...

...and the overtime pay is better than "boss" pay ;)

beamish said...

Imagine a system driven by a Nietzschean will to power, but tempered by Burkean "correction."

The "little guy" runs the show because he IS the show...

Thersites said...

That's where we differ, beamish. In my perfect bourgeois world, the "boss" doesn't get "paid". His is ALL the "profit". And there are LOTS of bosses.

beamish said...

I'm good with no worky no eaty

Stanley Kowalski said...

There's no such thing as risk-free liberty.

beamish said...

I keep one foot in "nature's camp"

There is no animal (or human) I wouldn't kill, cook, and eat if I had to... ;)

Joe Conservative said...

I'm with you, so long as one of us brings a bottle a Chianti... ;)

beamish said...

...and fava beans

Thersites said...