Thursday, September 06, 2007


J.M. has a blog, and he permits a few cronies to post there. Though he proclaims himself a "progressive," he controls registration and comments, and does not allow the public to post. In effect, J.M.'s blog is a VPN. So, J.M., like many "liberal" bloggers, falls in the class of Hypocrites (yes, the H-word is overused, but rather appropriate when the H-ness has reached the proportions of J.M.): for progressivism generally relates to "freedom" and his blog is anything but free. Progressive freedom in regards to writing, even blogging, implies the freedom to dissent (as does the 1st Amendment, arguably), even when that dissent offends someone's political or religious or psychological biases. (Even a rather f-ed up leftist such as Chomsky realizes that).

J.M. also likes to play skeptic or even atheist on occasion, while allowing born-again xtians (protestants, of course) to post on his site (and censoring other skeptics). He even listens to his born-again pals when they have some pathetic moralistic outburst to share (and moralists are to be found on both sides of political spectrum). Indeed progressivism (if J.M knew anything about it) actually opposes religious and theological thinking, while perhaps respecting Biblical ethics to some degree---say the Beatitudes--- in principle. But J.M. doesn't quite believe that, just as he can't quite rid himself of his presbyterian past. Indeed, like his unnameable, robot-like associate B_______, he doesn't know jack about the message of the New Testament either. More of his rather profound hypocrisy.

Along with the hypocrisy, J.M.'s site offers boo-coo bad surrealism (of course, the NW goys don't know Breton from their Bon Jovi albums) and low-grade Monty Python imitations: sort of the Starbucks liberal's favorite kultural pastime. NW: about the equivalent to talent nite at Bethel Baptist. It's unlikely any one of them ever read even a book by Kurt Vonnegut, a somewhat talented American surrealist. In fact, J.M. formerly associated with Deadheads. As did Contingencies, to a lesser extent. J.M.'s own anti-libertarian actions and his association with xtians, however, all might be read as a betrayal of the Grateful Dead code, which, while leftist to some degree, was never synonymous with, say, marxism, or even the DNC. Those who are not privy to the code of the Dead might not realize when that code has itself been betrayed. Suffice it to say that when Mormon writers and Heinlein are praised along with GoreCo. and the soccer-mommy marxists of KOS--and Dead manga or Vonnegut or cyberpunks are nowhere to be found---the code's been tossed away like the wrapper to a tofu and sprout tamale.

J.M. also allows his gangster-like associates to lie, and to offer great generalizations as truth. And allows them to depend on low-grade appeals to pathos, defamation, and logical fallacies. Most of the writing is premised on ad hominem ("don't f-n listen to Hitchens, that sickfuck neo-con" yada yada......), and ad populus, if not various simple-minded tautologies. To J.M., Bush and the GOP and War Effort are wrong because they are evil, and evil because they are wrong. Indeed most of the writing on NW rarely rises above that level. J.M. alas never quite realized that his own stated secular progressivism implies that values are not absolute (--especially when the jihadist opponents of the USA believe their own values are absolute). Pragmatism never appears on his blog: how could it? That would demand a far more nuanced type of thinking which he is incapable of. The only demons in the world are in the GOP, according to his unstable mind. And J.M. and his cronies never allude to the demons of the DNC (like Feinstein) who actually agreed to the GOP war project, in toto.

J.M., after censoring people, lying about them, libelling them, misconstruing their writings, also has the audacity to accuse his adversaries of mental instability. That is rather amusing: about like some KGB men who after a few years of revolution, decided the real marxists (even like Zinoniev) were actually a hindrance to the stalinist liquidation plans, and more or less concocted some BS charges , put them on show trials (with the "Peoples'" support), and sent them off to gulags. No, NW has not quite reached that level of malevolence, but in miniature, that is what many of these frat-boy leftist blogs have become: sort of mini-KGBs.

We here at Contingencies simply say this to J.M and his psychotic baptist-stalinist palsie: Essen sie Scheisse.


Anonymous said...

Thanks for the attention.

"You don’t know what psychology is. You don’t know what logic is. You don’t know what a valid argument is."

Possibly true. Nevertheless, the comment was sincere, and indicative that I'm not happy about mocking you (the names nonsense, etc.) when it seems you may have some issues to deal with and I'm not helping.

"You say mental problems again, or mention psychology, or accuse someone of mental instability..."

I was referring to the feelings expressed by a concerned friend who I am inclined to agree with. Nothing is certain. You could be in optimal mental condition and the rest of us our nuts. Who's to decide?

"I am not your pal or sidekick. We don’t need any patronizing BS or bogus new age care, fool."

Forgive me if you can. Just trying to help- or at least not makes things any worse.

Anonymous said...

One rather significant point I should address. I do not believe Bush and his cronies are evil and have repeatedly said so on New Worlds. I've in fact made a point of pointing out the fallacy of attacking "Them" as opposed to "Us" in favor of standing up for the principles one believes in- the "What" rather than the "Who".

Another not-so-minor point. The public is not banned from posting at New Worlds. So far in a year and half I've only banned a single user, and hardly reflexively. It still discomforts me that anyone should be kept from voicing whatever they wish to and feel that I have been forced into a bad solution in this particular case. I wish I could find a better one.

J said...

The issue concerns lies, misrepresentation, and defamation. I am not the one making it into a drama--you simply decided to favor your leftist pals x-ron and belakunya. I never started with insults. I was insulted and mocked (and still am) simply because, one, I don't agree to the agenda of the DNC (or the GOP for that matter), two, I don't believe there are grounds for 911 conspiracy claims on part of US Govt. or vote fraud in Ohio 2004. And I think islamic theocracy is a real danger, as are some aspects of contemporary leftism (like the J-Edgarish tendencies of KOS and related sites). All supportable positions, however Non-PC . But your cronies decided I wasn't NW par-tay material, and you listened to them, instead of me. I think it started when I alluded to Seymour Hersh's documented lies.

AS far as the What vs. Who distinction, I agree. I said that ALL ALONG. Like your post regarding the petroleum biz, which I agree with in part (though there's much more to it---i.e. islamification. You are being naive as usual). It's not about character or "evil." Of course your cronies don't agree, since about every one of their posts is hyper-moralistic, defaming, and premised on ad homs. Too bad you can't perceive their mistakes, fallacies, and emotion-fueled rhetoric for the dreck that it is.

There are no psychological issues, excepting perhaps your own delusions regarding the progressive values or "liberalism" of your pals. They are not progressives: more like crypto-marxist dogmatists.

Anonymous said...

"There are no psychological issues, excepting perhaps your own delusions regarding the progressive values or 'liberalism' of your pals."

Ahh, this sounds better. I admit to having delusions aplenty, and think it's pretty much the standard condition of the fallible human mind. I expect myself and my friends to be inconsistent and be driven by their passions as they are essentially beasts with overly large, barely controlled brains- like the bulk of the species.

I don't mind people being deluded, even dead wrong. I'd just prefer they weren't nasty to each other. Call me naive. Oh, yeah, you already did.

J said...

I don't have time for a lengthy post on the USA/Iraqi petroleum issue at this time. While I agree that may have been a relevant concern for some of the politicians involved, it was not "the causal factor" for deciding upon the war effort. I think the US and its allies (especially Great Britain) were very alarmed that a rogue nation had WMDs, and that the Baathists were sort of supporting terrorism (including AQ) across the globe.

Moreover, assuming for the sake of argument that the entire war effort was as sinister, machiavellian and profit-driven as you seem to suggest (routinely), the demo leaders sure in the F. haven't done much in the way of investigating it.

If you scroll through my blog you will note even back when I started doing this sh*t I voiced concerns about the war profiteering: even if one agrees that some action was needed against Hussein and baathists, one doesn't agree that Halliburton and Bechtel should line their pockets with profits earned from rebuilding the infrastructure. Why did the blogger leftists drop that issue? I thought that was about the best line of attack. Probably because most DNC-o-crats don't care to venture into economic discussions or any substantial critique of Corp. America.............

In a sense, the iraqi War demonstrates the limits of superficial binary thinking: I am no postmodernist, but there is a certain postmodernist aspect to 9-11 politics: we don't know the "Truth" about contemporary politics (including the Iraqi W.E.), if such a thing exists. The corporate media makes things worse. I agree that journalists--even say a Hitchens--could be misleading us. But then so could a Michael Moore or Chomsky. Citizens are all in the dark to an extent, and that is one reason I object to dogmatic moralism--whether left or right--- as if someone knew the entire TRUTH about the iraq situation.

Anyway, one can be opposed to jihadists and Bechtel or Chevron execs alike. I happen to think islamification is at least as troublesome as the corporate petrol. biz. Were you a bit more acquainted with contemporary Europe (where mosques are replacing churches at an alarming rate) you might agree.

Anonymous said...

I don't see Islamification as THE problem, anymore than I see Christianization as THE problem. What I do fear is Islamic extremism and other brands of the same. My feeling is that these are to some extent driven by the petrol biz and other attempts to assert our way of life upon parts of the world that haven't asked for it.

J said...

I didn't say it was the the only problem; but that it seems more problematic than the petroleum business, at least in terms of directly affecting civil liberties. Even in LA--and in Bay Area, I believe--muslims have made some rather extreme demands (for example, regarding religious clothing, demand for holidays, attacks on liquor stores, special protection for the Koran, etc.).

Any serious reform of petrol business would require severe political actions, ala Chavez in Venezuela. Americans, even most democrats, will not support nationalization of any industry, I do not think. So as usual your critique involves some nearly utopian if not revolutioary sort of solution; and in terms of pragmatic politics, is not really viable (besides, given the history of communism, some of us hesitate to sign off on ANY marxist sorts of politics). And it should be recalled the muslim faithful are not exactly marxist-friendly either. You might be partially correct that politicians and military leaders across the worlds are concerned with access to petroleum. But that was not the deciding factor for the Iraqi war. Controlling jihadist nuts was.

Anonymous said...

"You might be partially correct that politicians and military leaders across the worlds are concerned with access to petroleum. But that was not the deciding factor for the Iraqi war. Controlling jihadist nuts was."

Again, I'm not an expert so I can't speak authoritatively on the subject, but this just doesn't ring true to me. I think it (power economics) was the deciding factor. Controlling jihadist nuts was a convenient excuse that helped to sell the policy.

J said...

TO be honest, I agree with some socialist-like ideas, in principle. For examples of how those principles work in practice, read a bit more about your favorite Reds. I believe authentic marxism was thwarted when Lenin and his pals ( including Trotsky) decided to shut down the Mensheviks and other more "liberal" marxists. Later, the doctrinaire soviets decided to do the same to Trotsky and his cronies.

Given 20th century political history there are few if any reasons to be optimistic about any real political reforms. I think kids should be given like Kafka in grade school and have pics of nazi or stalinist concentration camps pasted up on the walls (or the ones the pakis used to kill approx. 2 million hindus in '71-72). Miss O'Grundy, teacher at Gran Puta de Babylon Elementary, should be required to wear a skull mask much of the year, or maybe have her tits out, pierced nipples and all.

Paraphrasing the soldier in Apocalypse Now who was barking to Willard, "you're in the a-hole of the world, Capn'." Except for a few lucky enough to live in gated communities, that is.

J said...

I think that was a perq of the decision to go to war, and one the SpinelessCrats should have objected to, and the "cronyism" aspects (Cheney giving out deals to Halliburton, etc.) should still be investigated. So why isn't it? Kos and DU are all about endless little scandals, GonzoGate, etc.: few if any people discuss whether Cheney made some arrangements with Halliburton or petrol businesses and gave them contracts.

But even if there was some cronyism, that doesn't negate the other factors. The Baathists WERE killing people anyway. They had WMD factories. They did allow known terrorists (including ones associated with AQ) to live safely.

It was not Norman Rockwell America over there (and still is not). The contractors have not had an easy time of it either--many have been killed and abducted.

At a certain point, we here at Contingencies shrug and say "C'est le guerre," put on Bill Evans playing Autumn Leaves, and return to our graft. There are injustices going down all over the world. Say in Russia. The Russians now have at least much nuke firepower as we do. Their new "birch tree" ICBMs or whatever could take out the Bay Area in less than a half hour apres launch. The chinese infantry outnumbers the US military by at least 4 to 1.

I would not be surprised to see world war in the next 5 years, of mega-death or even nuclear proportions. Yet everyone is guilty.

Anonymous said...

OT again, but I can't help responding to this:

"I suspect I have more college education under my belt, and indeed published writing to my credit as Beyta (and most likely as much tech knowledge as well). Indeed, given Beyta’s awkward, stilted, and irrational writing, I am quite sure I am a bit more conversant with the classics of English prose, whether in politics, philosophy or literature."

Your suspicions are a bit off base. He's a PhD in early Soviet studies, published in several journals that I know of. Fluent in Russian and perhaps other languages. A very cool guy as well.

J said...

I noted your pal beyta's insult du jour. Not only is it poorly written, trivial, and irrelevant , but obscene--if not racist. Indeed I suggest that Beyta is fundamentally a racist; his emotional ad hominem attacks on the "right" are racist (as in "get whitey"), as are his insults against anyone who doesn't share his own peculiar political perspective.

Beyta's shallow, superficial leftism via ID politics (shared by your other blog star, x-ron--whose writing is even more juvenile, crass, and fallacious, if that can be believed) is again, not authentic progressive politics. That is "who" and not what. Indeed it's not even marxist: more like the hysterical scribblings of one of Meyer Lansky's cronies or something.

I called Seymour Hersh a LIAR, and have evidence to prove it. (Any of you NW'ers care to wager on the veracity of that evidence?) For that, your unstable palski flew off the handle. I said that Gonzales had not been found guilty of a crime (but that he could be, eventually), and was exercising his rights as AG. That's constitutional Due Process. For that your palski flew off the handle. Similarly with my comments relating to Hitchens or Harris.

That is the method of the totalitarian, regardless if he votes dem or not.

J said...

Really? Let's have him cough up the sheepskin (and his GRE scores). Anyway, I know quite a few PhDs-- in all fields-- who have yet to make to a Bertrand Russell 101 level of analysis. And if a real PhD, his fallacies, anti-Americanism and crypto-racism are even more appalling.

Regardless, his methods are, in miniature the methods of the KGB. I keep waiting for "jackbooted bourgeois" or something to appear.

And I say again (you can tell him for me), Seymour Hersh is a LIAR. And we have beaucoup evidence to prove it.

J said...

Why not respond to my post? Were Beyta a real academic at a UC or Steinford or whereever, his salacious, manipulative and racist scribblings on your site would most likely be grounds for termination or losing tenure. Even at a workplace they might be. (Well, unless he had tenure at a marxist joint like Santa Cruz, where he would probably be awarded with a promotion for effective, that is, PC lying)

Again, you CLAIM to be about objectivity and fact-based writing, but your site indicates otherwise. You made one semi-interesting point regarding petroleum (but relying on comedians for politics is about like relying on psychics for detective work), and then it was followed up by ZombieRon's libel du jour.

Re-read that post from a few months ago regarding Seymour Hersh closely and you will note that Beyta's initial response was ALL ad hominems and defamation--allusions to O'Reilly, Savage, etc. etc. He never even addressed the factual points, and the evidence clearly pointing to Hersh's falsehoods in print (some unintentional or sloppy reporting--some not). That is the method of the propagandist and ideologue. I don't really care at this point, but don't claim to be all about objectivity and bias-free--- or fallacy-free--- writing when your two comrades specialize in deceit and verbal manipulation.

J said...

Which is to say, McScience, if you took that claim of petroleum exec. cronyism seriously, you would offer evidence establishing your claim. Hunches, suspicions, worries ain't proof. Indeed the sort of bogus paranoia-mongering common to your site (Billy SUNDAY-Ron specializes in it) is mostly bourgeois and irrelevant.

You might note that we here at Contingencies have written a bit on the skullduggery of the petrol. biz. We also posted something regarding Lee Raymond's diamond handshake and the Exxon schwein (they reported the greatest profits ever earned by an American corporation for a few quarters in 2005, I believe) some time ago on your site. You failed to respond.

You make the fallacious inference that opposing islamic theocracy equals supporting conservative politics and economics. Nyet. We oppose xtian and jewish theocracy as well (even when those xtian theocrats like vote dem and are vegetarian do-gooders who cut down on their steeroid use).

J said...

And we were quoting Palast on the CA energy fiascos a few years ago, with some reservations.

Uh btw, did you or did you not vote for King Schwarzenegger, McProgressive? Palast no se gusta con Ahhhhnuld.......

Anonymous said...

I think I voted for the forgettable idiot who couldn't beat a second-rate actor with the full resources of the Democratic Party behind him- oh, yeah it was Bustamante (sp?). I was tempted to vote for Camejo since it was clear Arnold had it in the bag.

Custom Search

Blog Archive