Saturday, September 22, 2007

Left in the Gutter

Here is a narrative for you, academic Lefties, since I know how much you like them:

“Well, the news is good so far”, said the chairman, swivelling his chair to look at the giant screen. “As you know, we managed to get our guy into office after all, thank God. We should really thank Bud over there for doing such a good job on the voting machines”.

The other Barons turn and briefly nod an acknowledgement. Bud remains impassive, chewing on his cigar. An image of the new President fills the giant screen. A vidcast of a recent speech.

“God, the guy’s a monkey”, says a voice.

“He may well be a monkey”, says the chairman smoothly, “But he is OUR monkey”.

He waits, briefly, for more interruptions, and continues. “Things are proceeding according to plan. We already have our new Pearl Harbor, our casus belli, so there is nothing to stop us going ahead. Hank will fill us in with the details”.

Hank stands at the podium. “Gentlemen”. He looks awkward for a second. “And ladies”. He pronounces very deliberately, nodding towards the far end of the table.

“The plan is a work of genius. The government will invade Islamistan, in pursuance of its energy security priorities. Why Islamistan? It’s the oil, stupid”.

There is a ripple of laughter around the table.

“They will require large amounts of materiel in order to achieve this; tanks, planes, bombs, etc. Those tanks and planes are very thirsty, so they’ll need a lot of oil too. There’s plenty of good business here for us. That’s stage one”.

He changes the slide.

“As a prelude to a ground invasion, there will be a prolonged air attack, aimed at disabling the country’s communications and transport infrastructure; roads, bridges, railways, water and utilities. But not the petrochemical facilities, obviously”. He grins. There is another ripple of laughter.

“Once the army goes in, their priority will be to secure these facilities first, and then to pacify the native population. We can help with this as well. The government will sub-contract some of its requirements to the private sector, both in terms of logistical support and tactical support.”

“So they’re going to come to us to hire trucks and mercenaries?”

“Exactly. That is stage two”.

He changes the slide again.

“Obviously, the whole point is to extract the gas, and we have already secured preferential concessions there. This chart shows projected revenues over the first ten years”.

There are nods of approval round the table.

“That is stage three. Then of course, there is the reconstruction. We will need to put in place a new civil infrastructure, which is stage four. Any questions?”.

“So the government will pay us to knock all the buildings down, and then pay us more to put them all back up again?”

“Exactly”.

“So we’re making money every which way”.

"Yep".

"And the whole thing is financed by taking their oil?"

“That’s the genius of it, Bob”.

The intercom beeps. A female voice. “Sir, it’s your eleven o’clock with the Civil Rights people”.

There are a few nervous glances around the table, but the chairman seems unfazed.

“Show her in”.

The door opens, and a burly security guard glances around. In walks a diminutive, serious-looking woman in glasses. The door closes, and she approaches the table.

“Mr Chairman, I have come here to appeal to you on behalf of the women and children of Islamistan. Everyone knows that in war, it is women and children who suffer the most. I call upon you, Mr Chairman, and members of the panel, to fulfil your responsibilities in this area, by funding an Islamistan Women’s Aid program, so that my friends and I can feel impo…er…work selflessly to alleviate the suffering of the innocents.”

The chairman passes her a check. “Here you are. There’s a few million dollars for your women’s … whatever it is".

"Wow. Thanks!"

"No problem. Off you toddle. Thanks for coming”.

Outside, there are hugs and squeals of girly triumph.

“Was that it?” asks one of the Barons. “I’m suspicious. That was just too easy”.

“Oh, don’t worry about her”, says the chairman smoothly. “She’s got no idea what’s going on. She spends most of her time downtown, hanging around outside a titty bar, giving out fliers”.

The expressions around the table vary from bafflement to grins of amusement.

“In fact she’s good for us. Having her on board will look good on the six o’clock news, and she can help with the task of pacifying the natives”.



Near the embarkation point, a unit of the 21st Christojihadist Militia goose-steps down the street, buckles glinting in the sunshine. The column passes a small group of bums drinking cheap booze on a bench. In his staff car, the Obersturmfuhrer glances up from his map of Iran, and looks at them briefly.

Two men are having an animated discussion. “But you’re oppressing my right to problematize phallocentric knowledges. You don’t accept the primacy of meta-narrative”.

“That’s where you’re wrong”, retorts the other. “I am a better post-modernist than you. I’m just saying, what has the government ever done for us?”

“Well, there is the welfare checks”, replies the first.

“Well, OBVIOUSLY there’s the welfare checks. But apart from the welfare checks, what has the government ever done for us?”

One of the women intervenes. “Honestly, you men”, she sneers haughtily. “Arguing and fighting. That’s all you’re good for”.

The men subside, cowed, and return to their bottle. The woman gloats to her friends in smug satisfaction.

The Obersturmfuhrer returns to his map. There is no immediate need to arrest them, because they pose no significant threat. If one of the drunks should develop enough balls even to heckle, he will be tasered.

The column marches on, unopposed.


Don’t worry though, academic Lefties, this is only a story; there is no such thing as the truth. Sleep well, now. Don’t have nightmares.

18 comments:

MikeeUSA said...

I made a new cartoon on feminism at http://mikeeusa.blogspot.com .What do you think?

BrusselsLout said...

I really think Heretic ought to write a novel!

It would be centred around the lives of a group of people, particularly men but also women and children.

Naturally, it would be about how feminism has affected, and goes on affecting, their lives.

A happy ending, of course, might sell well, and therefore get the message across to more people. But a tragedy would really drive the message home.

Dunno. Just an idea!

Mike said...

That MND link is a joke. Referencing reports, articles and "fact sheets" without links or citations. Lazy and weak.

And what's with that reference to postmodernism? Do you make a habit of making fun of things you clearly don't have the first clue about?

Bitterness and resentment, resentment and bitterness.

Heretic said...

Mike,
You are the one who sounds bitter and resentful. Perhaps you are still angry about the drubbing you got last time you were here.

Just like then, you pick on a small detail you don't like and become hostile and abusive. I assume you liked the rest of my references? You didn't have enough courage or honesty last time to admit when you were shown to be wrong, and I don't expect anything more mature from you this time.

As for my level of knowledge of post-modernism, you are in no position to comment.

The obvious question that occurs to me is: if you hate my blog so much, why do you read it? Are you some sort of masochist? Why don't you go and do something more fun?

My article obviously touched a nerve anyway. I must be doing something right...

Mike said...

Drubbing? Haha. Go to Youtube and search for "Jam Thick People." People who "win" arguments because they don't understand they've lost. In the thread you're linking to, you and your buddies didn't even realize that nothing you were saying was a refutation of my position, even if your stats were right.

And I think I am in a position to comment on your knowledge of postmodernism, since your use of the lingo was non-sensical and arbitrary.

I intended to comment on how your portrayal of women in this post - squealing, etc - indicates a contempt for women that goes beyond any of the empirical problems you've suggested. But then I thought, "why bother? He'll respond as if I'm saying like 'UNICEF is not obsessed with women's suffering!'"

Heretic said...

"I intended to comment on how your portrayal of women in this post - squealing, etc - indicates a contempt for women that goes beyond any of the empirical problems you've suggested. But then I thought, "why bother?"

No, please do. It's interesting that you have singled this out. It demonstrates your bias straight away, the degree to which you have been brain-washed without even realising it. Look at my depiction of men: as corporate robber-barons, Nazi thugs and drunken bums. Not a single positive portrayal of men in the whole article. But get this: you didn't even notice.

Mike said...

I ignored the portrayal of men because there's really only two ways to read it. Either men are in charge, and silly women are running around the outskirts of power nipping at their heals, or men are simply assholes.

Either way you read it, you're shooting yourself in your ideological foot.

Heretic said...

Mike, I'm struggling to stay awake here. If you don't like my blog, don't read it.

Anonymous said...

Heretic asked why Mike reads his blog if he doesn't like it.

ANSWER: because Mike is absolutely desperate to portray himself as an 'intellectual'. If you look at Mike's blog it is clear that he is falling over himself to give the impression that he is 'clever'.

But his blog consists of virtually nothing but sweeping assertions and unsubstantiated opinions using 'big' words. And there is no real substance to his thoughts.

In other words, he is not clever.

He stumbles across Heretic's blog and realises that Heretic is a man who not only out-thinks him and out-guns him on many issues that he thinks he knows so much about, but Heretic **also** brings evidence to bear in support of his points of view.

In other words, Heretic completely and utterly flattens Mike's arguments as well as his ego on many fronts.

Hence, Mike lurks around Heretic's blog, desperate to find some flaw in Heretic's thinking - and, thus far, he has found none.

Mike appears to have some kind of 'narcissistic' complex and, as such, he will forever be desperate to portray himself as being superior to everyone else.

You only have to look at his blog to see how much time he devotes to this self-aggrandising enterprise.

And his aim in lurking round here is simply to defend his bruised ego.

Furthermore, what has happened over the past few decades, Heretic, is that third-rate 'thinkers' such as Mike have managed to climb the 'academic' ladder simply by being politically correct. And these third-grade 'thinkers' then come to believe that they must be geniuses of some sort because they have succeeded academically. And they believe that their words and their thoughts must necessarily be infused with wisdom.

But, as I am sure you have noticed, Mike never says anything of value. He simply tries to foist his unsubstantiated opinions on to everyone else. And, round here, he is very demonstrably failing.

And it is **he** who is full of resentment and bitterness as a result.

And, my goodness, does it show.

AH

Heretic said...

AH,
Thanks for that. You're quite right. I just took a look at Mike's blog, and it is utter drivel. Pseudo-intellectual crap of the highest order. I particularly enjoyed his introductory reading list for philosophy, which doesn't include Marx or Wittgenstein, or any Empiricists, but consists mostly of French literary theorists. What a fucking joke. He says "my main aim here was brevity". Why? Your main aim should surely be accuracy and comprehensiveness. He says he was going to list Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, but he "had to cut something". Again why? He only lists 12 books in total, and he saw fit to include someone called Alain Badiou. Who has had the most impact on the history of Philosophy I wonder, Marx, Hume, Russell, Wittgenstein or Badiou? This guy really is a pretentious little jerk. He has spent a few years at college being indoctrinated into left-wing pseudo-intellectual crap, and he thinks he understands Philosophy. I can see now why this article of mine offended him so much. It pokes fun at people exactly like him.

Heretic said...

Another thought occured to me. Mike's background explains why has such little regard for empiricial evidence. His work has not trained him to gather and use empirical evidence, and indeed the absurd post-Marxist belief system he has been brain-washed into actively encourages him to take 'facts' with a pinch of salt. Scientific discourse is an Evil Patriarchal Conspiracy designed to silence Wimin and People of Color (and the working class too, although we don't really care about them. We just pretend to). Facts are an illusion. Feelings, relationships and personal judgements are all that matter.

It is depressing to see that this is what passes for education in our 'feminized' universities.

BrusselsLout said...

I wouldn't be too surprised if Mike is being prodded along by some of his feminist friends. Because they don't have the guts to come in and argue this out themselves, they need a foolish fall-guy to take the flack for them.

I wonder what hint of a smidgeon of a promise is in for him.

Mike said...

Should I be surprised that you don't like being on the receiving end of a polemic, when all you're capable yourself is polemics?

AH, feel free to say something specific. Anyone can launch rants about topics they have only the tiniest understanding of.

I was aiming for brevity in that list because it was meant to be INTRODUCTORY. You read so good!

The list was requested by a relative; they wanted to know my interests. That's another reason to keep it short, and the main reason why it's admittedly slanted.

but consists mostly of French literary theorists.

In a list of 12, there are only 4 Frenchmen, and only 2 of those wrote extensively on literature. You're parading your ignorance.

I don't lack regard for empirical evidence. Did you watch the "thick people" video I suggested? You don't understand what I'm saying, and I doubt I'll be able to explain it to you.

Davout said...

Mike,

Your comments for the most part proceed from ad hominems and baseless assertions.

I suggest you come back when you've learnt that assertions don't count as arguments. Clinging on to the proverbial Candle of Hope, assuming we will all be magically convinced of your position, will only get you singed or worse.

Try following some of your own advice and back up your statements with reason. Here's something to fill the interlude until your next pasting.

Heretic,

Kudos on the excellent article and your most recent critique of Mike's pseudointellectual musings.

Mike said...

You deleted an entire thread?

Heretic said...

Yeah, I got bored of it.

Heretic said...

There is no question in my mind that Mike is a woman. It is obvious from her argument style, and the things she chooses to pick up on. No doubt she thinks that she is being terribly clever and subversive and 'transgressing the boundaries' by pretending to be a man. Maybe she thinks a man will get a more sympathetic hearing. If so, she is wrong. People who talk sense get a sympathetic hearing, regardles of who they are. Mike never once got above the level of 'my dad is bigger than your dad', and she claims to be a Philosopher. I got bored of Mike. Mike is now banned from posting further comments. A new pseudonym will not help. A more mature style of argument will.

Heretic said...

This post of mine raises a whole raft of large and controversial issues. It is suggesting that the Bush administration is a fascist dictatorship. It is suggesting that the administration was behind 9/11. It is suggesting that the current middle-east wars are essentially acts of corporate piracy designed to sieze energy assets. It alludes to a totalitarian crackdown on domestic civil rights. It is also suggesting - intentionally - that the political Left, which might have been in a position to do something about all this, has come to be completely dominated by women, and is, as a result, completely ineffectual, because women are not interested in anything much beyond themselves.

What does Mike say?

"I intended to comment on how your portrayal of women in this post - squealing, etc - indicates a contempt for women"

Of all the things in this post you could have raised, you chose this one. Kind of proves my point.