Shallow thoughts from shallow minds

I’m always stunned by the shallowness of liberal thinking about international affairs. Granted, it’s hard to be deep on a bumper sticker, but surely they can do better than the ones I’ve been seeing lately. “In an eye-for-an-eye world everyone will be blind.” Well, yes. Of course, if the other side starts plucking eyes anyway and we actually adopt that philosophy, the good guys will be blind and the bad guys will be able to see. Frankly, I’d rather everyone be blind, remembering that other slogan — “In the world of the blind the one-eyed man is king.”

Or consider one I saw last week — “peace is patriotic.” Well, okay. But there are only two ways to achieve peace over an enemy who has declared war (jihad) on you — victory or surrender. Obviously, the owner of the bumper sticker does not want the country to do what it needs to do to achieve victory. And, I submit, advocating surrender is not patriotic.

Then there is the bumper sticker in the parking lot at my work that says, “there is no way to peace, peace is the way.” I’m still mulling that one over, but as best I can make out, it means that there is no way to achieve peace through victory, so we should achieve it by surrender.

I realize I’m picking on bumper stickers, but have any of the liberal blogs Bookworm has been reporting on offered any more insightful analysis? So, liberal readers of the Bookwormroom, how about enlightening me, and the rest of the readers, by actually engaging in a meaningful dialogue, with actual liberal ideas and analysis (and no unconstructive name-calling)? If there is more to the liberal position than the bumper stickers, let’s hear it. DQ.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • ranting2006

    I don’t think there are any liberals with enough guts to engage you on this question. If they do, they will play some sort of card as proof of their answer (race card, etc.)

  • webloggin

    Hi DQ,

    The bumper stickers you are seeing are direct extensions of the mindset that I see in the left side of the blogosphere.

    Let me relay my latest Newsvine experience. At first I though this place was great, the technology is excellent and it looked like a great place to start a discussion. The idea was excellent, put opinion pieces along side news pieces and allow people to vote/comment on each. The higher the vote count the longer your articles stay front and center.

    Well it wasn’t long before I was being equated with Ann Coulter, called all sorts of fun names and had my articles derided not for the content but rather for the concept of being conservative. Criticisms of my articles often became personal attacks on me.

    It was readily apparent that discussion was not really on the agenda for many of these people. You can’t call people names within the context of a question and expect that the ensuing debate will be on point or even of value.

    To top it off, the moderators and the coo of Newsvine are on the buddy lists of some of the very same people they are supposed to moderate. I had heard they were a bit biased in their moderation but I experienced it as well.

    The point? Discussion is not on the plate for these people. Groupthink is almost required and at times enforced.

    Derision and name calling is the liberal defense. Sure, they will throw out something here and there, usually a single incident that is applied with a broad brush or some sort of thin moral equivalency ruse. But discuss? Not the ones I have come across.

    They would rather live in a world where everyone agrees with their point of view, “Unidos con Kerry, Presidente”, “Bush is Evil”, “America is an Evil Imperialist Bully” and “Zionist” (where Zionist is used as a derogatory label, acceptable in its derogatory sense of course).

    All nice bumper stickers if you are on the left mind you but lacking in substance and reality.

  • Ymarsakar

    Advocating surrender is not always betraying the cause. Emperor Hirohito could only save his nation by surrendering, therefore he did his patriotic duty, even if it meant dishonoring the title of Emperor.

    I don’t care about bumper stickers. As with most issues, they can’t be slapped on a false slogan placard and carried around. Well, they can, but it can’t be done in any substantive fashion.

    Back to the original topic of mine. The Left isn’t patriotic, not in the sense that other Americans mean it. They do love certain things about this country, but those things are the same things hated by others in this country. So we cannot truly use the same word, patriotism, to reflect the feeling of one side and then use it for the other side. Since I’m not willing to give up the word patriotism for my side, I’ll just call the Left’s bundle of feelings faux patriotism. Like fake liberals, it is congruent like a triangle and its angles.

    That said, there is a way to surrender and be patriotic as well. But the Left does not achieve this level of self-sacrifice and duty, however. The fake liberals would love, to have someone fight with America on an even basis, 1 on 1, no advantages to either side. The fact that this would create a holocaust on the size of WWII, where everyone would be destroyed until one side simply collapsed from exhaustion, is not something they really care about preventing. Because they, the fake liberals on the Left, do not care about preventing mass destruction, I cannot truly support their calls for surrender or their calls to “even the playing field”.

  • Ymarsakar

    By the way, they only dislike an eye for an eye, because Israel has more eyes than the Arabs. So this makes it uneven. If Israel had the same power as the Arabs, in a symmetrical conflict, then the fake liberals would not care if it was an eye for an eye, so long as both sides destroyed themselves in a fiery self-righteous war of mutual annihilation.

    Since Israel has more eyes, they won’t get blinded in a symmetrical war with the Arabs. The Left wants people to be blinded, that way they can maintain control over the masses. I relate this to Stalin’s communist agents. They would fight Britain/US or they would fight for Nazi Germany. They did the latter first, then the former. But regardless, their goal is to achieve power for themselves, they are not truly interested in Nazi Germany winning or the Allies winning.

    An old strategy was called divide and conquer. The Left cannot take on Israel, because the Left has no military unlike the Soviet days. The Left cannot take on Hizbollah because Hizbollah is a terroist organization that executes people, something the fake liberals in Hollywood cannot control. Obviously, if America is weakened, if Hizbollah is weakened, if Israel is weakened all through fighting on an even level, an eye for an eye, we will all be blind with only the fake liberals having true sight.

    Patriotism is about love. So I ask what is love. Love is the belief that someone else’s life is more valuable than your own. Whatever happens to you, the fate of your nation should be worth dieing for, that is patriotism. Because patriotism is an extension of familial loyalty and filia love, it is very strong on a genetic basis.

    So, if your nation is facing a war of annihilation, and you believe that your side CANNOT win given the circumstances, then a valid argument for surrender comes into existence. Only idiots, retards, and religioius zealots would see the things that they love (Palestinian children) destroyed in order to harm the enemy. Reasonable people surrender when more fighting will cause more destruction.

    Because the Left does not urge the Hizbollah, Syrian, and Iranian contingents to surrender, the fake liberals and the Left are supporting, advocating, and supplying the destruction of the Arab world. I do not tolerate their vision for peace. Their peace costs too much and has zero returns.

  • Pingback: Webloggin - Blog Archive » Shallow Thoughts From Shallow Minds()

  • Bookworm

    DQ — I totally agree with you about the irritating bumperstickers. I’ve seen the same (in the same parking lot). They’re utterly fatuous, because they don’t recognize the reality that peace is a viable alternative only when both parties to a legitimate dispute crave that outcome. Where one party has no interest in the a flowers in the field kind of “peace,” the side advocating peace will find it only in the grave.

  • Patrick O’Hannigan

    “Peace is the way,” but as the Founding Fathers well knew, “a well-armed militia” is “necessary to the security of a free state.” Ergo, peace through strength, and *pace* Ronald Reagan.

  • Laer

    Cuteness over consequence; that is the Left’s weakness.

    Their slogans are quite cute — although Bookworm proved some months back we can be just as cute — but run down any Leftist logic path and you end up at bad news for America.

    Patriotism, when it needs to be activated, almost always involves consequences. You may die. “Innocents” may die. Halliburton may make money. But included in these consequences are that freedom is protected, those who would take our freedom from us are destroyed, and the proposition that America stands for something Big and Good is furthered.

    Cuteness can do none of the above.

  • Don Quixote

    Ranting2006 may be right. I try to engage every liberal who comments on this blog in meaningful, respectful dialogue and they invariably give up and leave. It’s a shame, because these blog should be used for constructive dialogue. Can any of you suggest good blog sites where such dialogue actually takes place?

  • Ymarsakar

    Don’t underestimate kawairi. (Japanese term for cuteness)

    Given the fact that both Bookworm and neo-neocon came from the …. uh Democrat tradition, how far do you think you want to go Don quixote?

    We’re already somewhere in the middle in terms of personal transitions. If Democrats can’t communicate with those who were once part of the fold, what are the rest of us supposed to do.

    As for blog sites, there’s the Left, there’s the Right, and there’s people in the middle. If the Left doesn’t want to talk on the middle sites of transition and sublimation points, then you’d have to invariably go to sites like Daily Kos to see their arguments. Although many have tried that, none so far seems to have succeded. Or at least they don’t brag about it.

  • zhombre

    “Ranting2006 may be right. I try to engage every liberal who comments on this blog in meaningful, respectful dialogue and they invariably give up and leave. It’s a shame, because these blog should be used for constructive dialogue. Can any of you suggest good blog sites where such dialogue actually takes place?”


    Unfortunately, most blogs are totemic. Especially the lefty ones. People choose their virtual totem poles to cluster around and those who post adverse opinions are generally treated like pariahs, fitted for the troll hat. “Drive by” comments; vituperation; insults, often quite vile ones; and ridicule are common. I suspect the anonymity of the keyboard diminishes restraint.

  • Don Quixote

    Hi Z,

    I’m afraid you’re right but, darn it, we sure are missing out on a chance to learn from each other. What a waste of a potentially very valuable tool.

  • Trimegistus

    I’ve noticed that conservatives tend to have lots of the same bumper sticker while liberals try to cram as many different bumper stickers as the car will fit.

    The other rule of thumb is that the more stridently environmentalist bumper stickers a car has on it, the more pollution it emits.