Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts

Saturday, June 20, 2020

Yellow Lives Matter

I recently saw a popular Christian apologist post the following image on Facebook. He's also been making posts sympathetic to if not in support of BLM.

Let's take a comparison:

Asian-Americans hear similar things. You're a banana or Twinkie. You're fresh off the boat. No but where are you really from? Well of course you're good at math and science. You all look the same. And so on.

Asian-Americans face systemic racism in college admissions. For example, see the Harvard law suit which may go all the way to the Supreme Court.

Yet, are Asian-Americans going around demanding the cancellation of every movie or series with yellow face racism? Supporting a Marxist-influenced organization like BLM? Justifying the destruction of property? Tearing down railroad tracks from the First Transcontinental Railroad because Chinese immigrants were literally treated like pack animals? Using Japanese internment camps like Manzanar as a modern rallying cry against the evil US government?

Should Asian-Americans be doing these things?

I think other racial/ethnic groups could say similar things too (e.g. Latinos, Indigenous Americans, Jews, underprivileged whites). Where's the massive public outrage and support for them? Why aren't CNN and MSNBC covering their plight as much as BLM?

Tuesday, June 02, 2020

America's Tiananmen square

(Thanks to Jitt Teng for helping restore this post!)

I notice some people are comparing the riots to Tiananmen square. I suppose the idea is Trump's administration, the military, and the police are akin to the communist Chinese government, while the "protesters" are akin to the democracy-loving Chinese people. I guess George Floyd is Tank Man.

1. The Chinese people couldn't and didn't fight back against their government. Rather, the communists government massacred the people. Men, women, and yes even children were murdered. They were gunned down. Tanks rolled over them. Tiananmen square literally ran with blood. The entire area was aggressively "cleansed" by an army group that was notoriously vicious. It was called upon by the CCP leaders precisely because the army group was known to be so vicious.

2. By contrast, protesters are allowed to protest. The Trump administration hasn't silenced their voice. If anyone wants to see silence, then consider how China has ended Hong Kong's democracy just days ago. And consider what's still happening in Hong Kong:

Trump hasn't unilaterally sent in the US military. And the US military certainly hasn't massacred anyone.

3. No doubt police brutality is a legitimate concern. It should be dealt with. But how is "protesting" by rioting helping deal with police brutality? The rioters are behaving anything but peacefully. They're looting stores, burning down buildings, and violently attacking innocents. They're shooting police officers (e.g. here, here).

4. I don't know if rioters in general have any sort of ideology. (However, I think organized groups like Antifa do have an ideology.) At the very least, rioters aren't respecting democracy. In fact, I suspect many if not most rioters are ignorant about our system of government. That's quite unlike the student-led protests at Tiananmen square. Many of these students were well-versed in the intellectual history of democracy. Many of them could argue for democracy, but how many rioters have ever read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, even some of the Federalist papers?

5. If anything, the rioters seem to want anarchy. Evidently they want to live out Alan Moore's twisted vision in V for Vendetta and Watchmen.

6. Some intellectuals are defending the riots. However, as George Orwell said: "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them".

The Navy SEAL that killed Osama bin Laden may have a truer perspective when he calls the protesters "terrorists".

7. It looks like the left is actively supporting and perhaps inciting rioters like Antifa (e.g. here, here). If so, I presume the short-term goal is to bring down Trump. To make his administration seem impotent to do anything.

Yet leftist politicians like Biden may be playing with fire. If they start a revolution, the revolution may not necessarily end with them in charge (e.g. here, here). Consider whether Bernie bros ever wanted Biden. Even Robespierre the guillotiner was guillotined.

Sunday, May 31, 2020

Don't catch you slippin' now

Coram Deo asked a good question about why people riot. In general, I presume there are many different reasons. I offered a brief response in the post, but I'm sure it could be expanded and improved.

However, in the case of George Floyd, much of it is due to perceived racism. The kind of thing epitomized in Childish Gambino's "This Is America". George Floyd is coming on the heels of Ahmaud Audrey and Breanna Taylor too.

Yet, perception isn't necessarily reality. Is it only black folks and other minorities targeted by the police? Consider the tragic case of Daniel Shaver only a few years ago. The officer who killed Shaver was found not guilty.

Anyway, there's a lot of pent-up frustration against authorities in general, especially the police, police brutality, the blue wall of silence. A lot of it justified, in my view. There are a lot of corrupt cops. Cops who don't serve and protect. Of course, I'm not suggesting riots are the answer. Not at all. I don't defend the riots.

That said, I want to come to my main point: I think the left is fomenting a lot of the riots. Leftist agitators. Take arguments like this which attempt to justify violent protests. Likewise take how some argue "black rage" is a "spiritual virtue". Take the house that Obama built (e.g. Obama arguably inciting blacks against authorities). Take the fact that "Biden's staff is donating to a group that funds the release of rioters" (source).

It's as if leftists are using Floyd's death as a pretext to push their agenda. It's as if leftists want a second civil war. A revolution.

If so, I suppose that'd be in line with what socialists and communists have always wanted. To build a new world atop the ash heaps of the old world, the world of their fathers. They don't honor their parents, but wish to commit patricide and matricide. They're not their grandfathers' sons, but their grandfathers' slayers. Destroy Amerikkka, arise Utopia.

I don't think the US today can be defeated by external forces (e.g. China), but I think we could defeat ourselves by tearing ourselves apart. Many on the left are like a fifth column in the US.

Update. Andy Ngo, who himself was a victim of Antifa, makes good observations which overlap with mine.

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Comrade Bernie

Many people, including many conservatives, believe Bernie is authentic. A man of conviction. That he's always been sincere in his convictions about socialism. Sure, one may vehemently disagree with comrade Bernie, but at least he's the real thing. Or so it's often claimed.

1. I'll certainly grant comrade Bernie is more forthright and honest than Obama or Hillary. However, that's a pretty low bar! The latter two are snakes in the grass; it's always a challenge to sink lower than a snake.

2. At the same time, there's no virtue in being courageous and true to oneself if one is also a fool. One can be courageous and true to oneself, but rush headlong into disaster. Consider all the Muslim suicide bombers who believe they'll obtain 72 virgins if they die killing infidels in the name of Allah. They're true believers in Islam, and it takes some courage to kill oneself with a suicide vest, but that doesn't mean they weren't idiotic or stupid. As the saying goes: fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

3. If someone wants to be a fool, then I guess "whatever" for them. The real tragedy is when their foolishness harms or kills others. That, again, can be seen in Muslim suicide bombers who murder others. However it can just as well be seen in comrade Bernie. If his socialist vision was ever fully implemented, there's good reason to believe it would severely harm our nation if not worse.

4. All that said, I'm skeptical about Bernie truly having the courage of his convictions these days. If comrade Bernie is truly a man of his convictions, then why doesn't he live like it anymore?

Let me take a step back. I think there are at least two ways to test a person's convictions. Either make it cost him significantly to stick to his beliefs or bait and entice him away from his beliefs. See if he will withstand sufferings or see if he'll be drawn out by temptations.

For example, as Christians know, that can be seen in our faith either when we suffer for being Christian (e.g. friends and family turn against us, we lose our livelihoods) or when we're tempted away from Christianity (e.g. wealth, sex). Satan is both dragon and serpent, persecutor and seductress, murderer and liar, dark angel and angel masquerading in light.

Along similar lines, I think comrade Bernie may have been true to his socialism in his marginalized years. True to his socialism when he had little. When he was a no-name senator on the sidelines. When he was no-one and had nothing. So I'd agree it does say something that comrade Bernie could cling onto his socialism in these lean years. His socialist faith was not a fairweather faith.

However, where hardship and adversity didn't work, it seems to me charms and beguilements did. That is, it seems to me comrade Bernie used to be a man of his convictions, back when he was relegated to obscurity and irrelevance in American politics, but now that he's become the popular leader of an ever-growing movement that has helped line his pockets, he's caved to the bourgeoisie life. For example, Victor Davis Hanson recently noted:

Oddly, Sanders’s rivals on the debate stage never really hit the presumptive leader where he is most vulnerable: his reprehensible past empathy for the genocidal Soviet Union, and his praise of communist dictatorships such as those in Nicaragua and Cuba. Then there remains the embarrassing paradox of a die-hard socialist redistributionist eager to cash in on his political career—to the extent of setting up his wife as an in-house, well-paid consultant (with her past failed career as wheeler-dealer small college president who bankrupted her institution and for a while won the attention of the FBI), while becoming a millionaire with three homes. Mention that, as Bloomberg did in the recent debate, and Bernie becomes livid, in a fashion that appears dangerous for a septuagenarian who recently survived a heart attack.

In short, I think comrade Bernie's life mirrors what happens to socialists and communists once they've achieved power. They willingly suffer through long marches and bloody revolutions, but once they're in charge they begin to bask in their newfound position and power.

Look at the lives of Stalin, Mao, Castro. Consider today's communist leaders like Xi Jinping (China) and Kim Jong-un (North Korea). All of their lives have been marked by far more affluence and even opulence than what their compatriots endure day by day.

Of course, that's not to say socialist and communist leaders will ever stop claiming to be bona fide socialists and communists. Quite the contrary. They'll instead willingly break the backs of their supposed working-class comrades for their own ends or pleasures. They're like the pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm who used and abused the horse Boxer then sold him off to a glue factory once his strength was spent. They'll engage in doublespeak to justify themselves: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Sunday, February 16, 2020

Saturday, February 15, 2020

Parasite review

(No significant spoilers except in the very last paragraph.)

The film Parasite won the Oscar for Best Picture. It was the first foreign film to have ever done so. It's a South Korean film.

The premise is a poor and unemployed family consisting of a father, a mother, a teenage son, and a teenage daughter end up conning and weaseling themselves into working for a rich family. The father serves as their limo driver, the mother as their house maid, the son as an English tutor for the rich family's daughter, and the daughter as the rich family's youngest son's art therapist. They forged documents to pretend like they have college degrees and work experiences they don't. The rest of the film unfolds from this setup.

I think one could evaluate the film on at least three different levels: a thriller with some dark comedic elements, a critique of "crazy rich" Asian culture, and social commentary (if not metaphor) about contemporary class warfare. Let's consider each of these.

Monday, February 10, 2020

Parasites

"Workers of the world, unite!"

Ironic to see Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' The Communist Manifesto quoted by rich elitist celebrities who wouldn't be seated anywhere near the second-class bourgeoisie passengers let alone among the proletariats in steerage. No, they'd instead be in the stateroom enjoying the luxurious lifestyle of the 1%. And this is just the tip of the iceberg in the ridiculous progressive activism on display at the Oscars last night.

That said, it's interesting to see the Korean film Parasite receive four (of six) wins - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and Best International Feature Film. The film's writer-director-producer Bong Joon-Ho won all of them. Furthermore it's the first foreign film to win Best Picture. And Parasite is the third film to concurrently win the Oscar for Best Picture and the Palme d'Or (Best Picture at the Cannes film festival). The other two were 1945's The Lost Weekend and 1955's Marty. All in all, quite an accomplishment for S. Korean cinema.

Prior to this, I think the best Asian cinema had done was nearly two decades ago when Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon won four (out of ten) Oscars (Best Foreign Film, Best Original Score, Best Art Direction, and Best Cinematography).

Today there are plenty of other critically acclaimed Asian movies and shows. Take for instance The Farewell as another recent critically acclaimed film. There are lauded tv sitcoms like Fresh Off the Boat and Kim's Convenience too. I'm sure we could multiply examples.

There are many reasons for the ascendancy of Asian cinema in recent years. However I just want to note it looks to me most the best aspects of Asian cinema have arisen in democratic Asian nations like Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and S. Korea. It's not often one sees (say) communist China produce high quality films. Especially before it embraced a capitalist market economy, albeit state-controlled. Probably Zhang Yimou is one of the few standouts in mainland Chinese film, but even his films have been censored by the Chinese government.

Yet we have moralizing Western elites lecturing average people about the horrors of Trump and conservatives, and the greatness of progressivism and socialism, while they're likewise benefiting from the fruits of a nation where film and the arts have the ground soil in which to flourish. In other words, the same moralizing celebrities wouldn't likely enjoy the life they currently enjoy if they had worked in show business in Cuba, N. Korea, or communist China. Who are the real "parasites" again?

Too bad these progressive Hollywood celebrities didn't take to heart Ricky Gervais' monologue at the Golden Globes last month:

So if you do win an award tonight, don't use it as a platform to make a political speech. You're in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent, and your God, and [bugger] off, okay?

Update: I finally watched the movie Parasite. I review the film here.

Saturday, August 31, 2019

Red New Deal

1. Good to see the Democrats are going with full-blown socialism. That'll definitely go over well for them in the crucial Midwest swing states. /s

2. Democrats alleged Trump has been in cahoots with Russia. Of course that turned out to be false. However, I wouldn't be surprised if communist China is truly funding our social progressives via various middlemen and avenues difficult to trace back to the CCP. At least that seems far more realistic than Putin and Trump.

3. Victor Davis Hanson has a good article: "Why are so many young people calling themselves socialists?".