Last week’s installment focused on how the mind-control Leftist media colors the popular perception of various contemporary and historical events. Given the meltdowns occurring simultaneously at the LA and New York Times, it would seem as if that part of the matrix might be springing a few leaks. Not that I think that either of those papers will be running articles praising Joe McCarthy or bad–mouthing FDR anytime soon.
What we’re noticing is just how difficult it is to maintain a huge web of lies. However, the matrix continues to perform splendidly in the ultimately more destructive arena of annihilating such basic concepts as objective good and evil.
Let’s start with some “real” conservatives—Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt.
Medved, you might recall, was, at one point in his life, liberal enough to work for big–time Leftie Congressman Ron Dellums. Somewhere along the way, Medved had an epiphany and became conservative, but still respects and admires Dellums. Assuming that Medved is telling the truth, we have to reconcile that he respects and admires a man with whom he would disagree about nearly everything. As such, Dellums the man is a great guy, apart from what he does and what he stands for.
On a recent show, Hewitt was mocking Arianna Huffington’s conversion from social climbing Republican to social climbing liberal Democrat as “silly” (that’s about as forceful as this wimpo–con ever gets), but concluded by saying that he still likes her. Thus, he can still like a woman who stands for nothing, and is little more than an opportunistic prostitute. Remember that it took her 18 years to realize that she was married to a gay man, and this was coincidentally right after he had lost a senate race. She could now obtain a quick, immensely profitable divorce, and re–invent herself. When she writes about “Pigs at the Trough,” she ought to know!
Now, let’s move to the Left.
During the 1960’s, they gave us radical chic, that quintessentially upper eastside phenomenon whereby the gliterati hung on every word uttered by a motley crew of common thugs and murderers. Forgiving Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes years later would be child’s play, after having Eldridge Cleaver in your drawing room.
How about the diplomatic corps and the elite endowed foundations?
Making a hero out of Nelson Mandela was one thing, but treating a bloodthirsty terrorist like Yasser Arafat as a statesman definitely pushes the envelope. Awarding him the Nobel peace prize was another masterstroke.
Follow the logic here, please. What a man “is” is somehow completely distinct from, and more fundamental than what he does. Using this reasoning, if we ignore the faults of Manson/Hitler/Stalin, fill in the blank, they are otherwise “good guys.” Thus, good people can do bad things. In fact, ONLY good people do bad things, since merely doing bad things does not make you bad, and thus, all people must be good. As such, a good person caught doing something bad cannot be punished, but rather “educated.”
Indeed, the word “punishment” has been excised from the lexicon entirely! Even after 9/11, the perps were to be “brought to justice.” One would think that the killing of thousands of innocent people might merit a stronger statement of resolve. In the past, it would have, but that was before cojones were also excised from the society.
The end result is that tolerance has been enshrined as the supreme virtue. In this environment, grotesquely incompetent CEO’s run companies into the ground, while majestically feathering their own nests; the majority of Ivy League students receive “A” grades; an idiotic Muslim woman is able to sue for the right to have her driver’s license picture taken wearing a veil; miserable Church leaders who facilitated child molesters are allowed to stay in power; and a ragtag group of incredibly suspicious looking characters are able to hijack airplanes on September 11, 2001.
It seems to me that we could use a whole lot more intolerance right about now, but the matrix won’t allow it.