Leftist elites dislike conservatives because they resent reality.

1. The GOP has achieved what Obama could not have accomplished. Kudos to Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul. Most likely, the next President of the USA is again Barack Obama. The words “well-deserved” come to mind.

(1) Some measures that are sold as the practical application of the principle of tolerance. In the case of a few of these, that what is advocated is not tolerance but a symptom of an ailment whose origin is lacking self-confidence and collective guilt.

A repeat offender, who committed a brutal murder while in an early release program, came up with an interesting defense. He explained to have killed because he missed jail. As the trial moved toward the sentencing, the accused fought to avoid a life sentence. Can anyone detect the inconsistency that the court could not?

There is much talk these days regarding Chancellor Merkel’s management of the European crisis about the return of Bismarck’s Realpolitik. But there is no such talk, as far as I am aware, of the American copy of it. However the most conspicuous reminder on the social struggles of the late 19th century is President Barack Obama imitating Bismarck with his recent double blow of disenfranchising health care reform and precipitation of a “culture war” on religion, particularly Catholicism. It has got an immediate and unprecedented response by representatives from the Jewish-Christian community (WSJ, Feb. 10, 2012: “United We Stand for Religious Freedom”). 

The Soviets have abused the Russian language and culture by converting them into instruments of subjugation. The consequences still disadvantage the region.

An acquired language can be an instrument of integration, and access knowledge whereby it facilitates upward mobility. Millions that had entered the USA and Canada have learned English under these terms. That big story describes this writer’s personal story. In such instances, the new language liberated its users. In the case of contemporary immigrations, we encounter instances in which, by their free choice, groups enter countries whose culture, traditions and language –but not its welfare payments- they reject. Indigenous “goodpersons” tend to support such self-incapacitation. Preserving traditions and dignity is exploited to justify the resistance.

Trying to Find a Biological Basis for Morality

There are certain kinds of arguments philosophers call ‘self-defeating’ because if you turn out to be right you are wrong and obviously if you turn out to be wrong you’re wrong. Trying to find biological foundations for morality is one of these kinds of arguments. A very clear example of a self-defeating argument would be to argue that rational argument is impossible. If I am rationally convinced by your argument, then rational argument is possible, not impossible and the argument is disproven. If you cannot persuade me because rational argument is impossible, then likewise the argument fails. The problem of course is that you must rely on the very thing you are hoping to prove does not exist.

About the hidden forces that determine what you will have reason to think.

Before resigning, Sarah Palin admitted:  “I cannot take this anymore.” Since the title “Iron Lady” is already given away, the best way to refer to Ms Palin might be “Metal Maid”. The case makes one speculate about the instruments that can end the political life of a toughie. The concern is independent of whether one is a Palin fan or not. 

Palin’s case points to other victims. Behind this affair, there is a force that cannot be written off. Thus, the seemingly isolated issue is an occurence that is not limited a country or to parties. We have a case with a warning label “You are next”. 

The pledge to eliminate capitalism sells. The goal‘s equivalent is to serve a steak that has never been part of a cow.

The “traditional” civilizations of the past had generated significant achievements. About these –just think of the pyramids- it is to be noted that in them, the blend of knowledge, material and capital differed significantly from today’s usual mixture. 

The conservative historical view tends to correlate the ascendancy of the ideological dictatorships with the degrading tumult of World War II, making of the Nazi-Communist rivalry in the 1930s the tense build-up to that war while interpreting the conflict itself as a paroxysmatic re-ordering of world politics. The regulation of the re-ordered world would be technocratic and autocratic – it would ideological – whether the victorious global hegemon was the United States of America or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. A type of elective étatisme was in the air. The British majority, for example, voted socialist immediately the conflict ended, contemptuously booting the architect of the victory, Winston Churchill, from office. France and Italy contended with large, well-organized Communist Parties and likewise embarked on the nationalization of their economies and the provision of generous welfare guarantees to the citizenry. The liberal colonization of institutions begins in this period, to become implacable and irreversible about the time that the Soviet Union dissolves in 1990. Quite apart from historical discussion, many non-scholars who think of themselves as conservatives nourish the notion that the “soft” totalitarianism of the contemporary politically correct regime in the West has only a short pedigree and that but a few decades ago, as in the 1950s, perhaps, tradition still reigned and things were in their proper proportion and arrangement. Of course such a view ignores the “enlightened” managerialism of Woodrow Wilson and the socialist quasi-dictatorial style of Franklin D. Roosevelt, just as it ignores the mobilized character of such phenomena as Suffragism and Prohibitionism, early phases of the liberal project that confusingly coincided with the anti-immigration and anti-Communist movements.

A low-volume echo to an ongoing major trend.

From the outset, North America has been a purposeful experiment. It was to prove that Europe’s best ideas were viable after a start from scratch. 

To proceed, we need a working designation of what “Europe” means. Along with “Western Civilization”, we like to use the term loosely. When we call Europe the “West”, we add the Americas, Australia, and New Zeeland. This separates Europe from its geographical anchor and suggests a civilization defined by change and mobility. We can continue by applying the criteria to include other “progressive” world neighborhoods. In doing so, we imply the membership of Japan, National China, Korea, Singapore. Reaching ahead to what is to follow, the reader notes how many non-European components are included. As things stand, it might be desirable to replace the term “Europe” and “West” with a new term. It would need to be cognizant that the essentials of what has once been a western monopoly – material progress and political democracy- have cut its umbilical cord to Europe and its ethnicities.  

Throughout the world the mantra rises for all nations to protect “human rights.” And while this normally refers to protecting life, it often goes out as a call to protect the latest interest of an esoteric movement: usually one availing itself of the tactic of shame in a bid to have its every demand met in full. We see this in the push to end “gender-labels,” where academicians argue that the traits of being male or female are socially constructed vehicles of oppression that stand in violation of “human rights.”  And we also see it in pushes for “universal healthcare,” where people claim medical services are just one more thing to which they have a right.