Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Terrorists and Leftists Have Something in Common

So I guess with all the calls to the radio show you all wanted this reposted, so here it is. THANKS FOR LISTENING!

When your ego supersedes the truth and the well-being of your fellow man, you got issues. For if I were to bet money on it, I'd say that the instant your desire to advance yourself trumps the rights, livelihood and well-being of others is the instant you have become evil. And nowhere do we see this better displayed than in the two largest drama queens in the world; terrorists and leftists.

Argue as you may that this is slander and rhetoric, but I contend there is a real connection, a bond that the two share and it is an insightful bond for it explains the behavior of both these groups.

I noticed many years ago as a freshman at college that fellow freshmen were looking to join a group. To belong. To have some sort of social network. Now, this would manifest itself in the form of freshmen looking to join fraternities. Perhaps join the student group association for their field of study or join intramural sports.

But what I found particularly disturbing was how many of these freshmen, who never had a day of strife in their lives, who never held down a full time job, never supported themselves nor a family, and in their short 18 years of existence never had any life-forming experience that would make them a wise, experienced adult, would join political groups.

Not that this is a bad thing in itself, but what I found ironic is that political groups, in short, are groups that wish to change the world or lead the world down a certain path. And the arrogance of these 18 year old children, thinking somehow they had the experience and wisdom to dictate to the rest of the country or the world how things should be angers me to no end.

A perfect example would be the idiots in the anti-globalization movement. Here you have a group of (once again) young, stupid college students (some even in high school), going out on some "noble crusade" to help the poorer countries of the world. Did one of them take the time to stop and see if lowering trade barriers does indeed hurt the poor? Of course not, that would take intellectual rigor and effort. Much easier to smoke some pot, pierce your nose, feel sorry for yourself, say, "yeah man, it's like all the corporations dude and they're raping the developing world for their resources!" and then go down to Seattle or Cancun and derail the trade meeting while effectively destroying the town as well in a riot/protest.

Meanwhile (and follow the logic on this), Bukbar in Tanzania who desperately wants to sell his cotton to America and Europe cannot for a bunch of spoiled brat suburbanite American kids with absolutely no education in international economics protested against the lowering of tariffs in order to help him. Insanity.

Another perfect example of leftist's ignorance harming what they're trying to help is when a group of environmentalists destroyed a bunch of genetically modified trees in Britain. Little did they know the trees were genetically modified to be more resistant to insects and therefore would not need pesticides and chemicals making them environmentally friendly.

Such ignorance suggested to me that there was more afoot than just the desire to "belong." That there was another psychological factor driving these leftists. If these people really just wanted to "belong" then they could have joined the badminton team or the broom ball league and left it at that. But no, they insisted on joining "causes" or "crusades." Things that revolved around protesting or changing the world. And then it hit me;

Their egos.

It is human nature to want to go and accomplish things. To build a better mouse trap. To climb the highest peak. To accomplish things to be proud of, and let's admit it, to help build our self-esteem and ego. But those endeavors require something; effort.

Ironically, this runs contrary to another aspect of human nature, particularly leftists; we're lazy. We like to accomplish the most, with the least amount of effort.

Now, take some spoiled brat kid whose parents had the "my child is an honor student at the school for freaking retards" bumper sticker. This kid never had to work, never accomplished anything, but was taught to believe that he is great and destined for great things by his parents and feel-good-touchy-feely-teachers. Take that ego and combine it with the kid's desire to belong to a group, feed his ego, yet expend minimal effort, and when given the choice;

"Hey kid, you can bat this shuttlecock back and forth and belong or...

"Fly out to Seattle against insurmountable odds to protest in an epic and never-ending galactic battle against the evil, villainous forces of Capitalism in a desperate attempt to save no less than THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD from Capitalism's evil clutches!"

What do you think the suburbanite-bred-egomanic kid is going to choose?

Obviously he's going to join the Peace Corps, ACT, ALF, ELF or some anti-globalization outfit. Why play volleyball when you can become an instant hero in a noble cause without really thinking about it or doing anything. Forget whether the policies work. Forget whether those genetically modified trees would have benefited the environment. Forget that every time countries trade participating countries' standards of living go up. And forget that the last $650 billion in aid to Africa didn't do squat. It doesn't matter, because "I care, I'm helping, I'm making the world a better place." One only has to look to Bob Geldorf, the founder of the failed Live 8 benefit concert;

"Something must be done, even if it doesn't work."

Could a more defining statement of liberalism exist? Alas, this is key to understand the psychology of the left, especially protestors and activists, for...

Their egos supersede the cause. Forget whether the cause is noble or not. Forget whether their cause actually produces tangible results. Forget whether the cause even worsens the situation or perhaps is indeed evil. And heaven forbid you spend any time studying and researching the facts. It doesn't matter because it is more important to these people to masturbate their egos and feel good about themselves than it is to actually alleviate poverty in Africa. Or eliminate the use of pesticides. Or increase the standards of living in poorer countries.

In other words little 19 year old Protestor Patricia should have the right to protest against CAFTA because her self-esteem is more important than the livelihood of Jose Honesto in Costa Rica who just wants to sell his bananas in the US and feed his family.

The question is, does this really significantly differ from that of the psychology of Islamic terrorists?

Note the many similarities between the spoiled brat-come-professional protestor and Islamic terrorists. The majority of these professional activists and protestors do not come from the slums of Cabrini Green in Chicago or the pits of Washington D.C. but from affluent suburbia with all their basic life necessities taken care of by daddy, allowing them the luxury of pursuing intellectual pursuits. The same can be said of Bin Laden and many of the terrorists. For they do not hail from poor, impoverished families in a podunk Pakistani village, but rather are the sons of billionaires, doctors or most recently spoiled kids enjoying the high standards of living in the United Kingdom. Also much like their leftist American counterparts they are all relatively young or were young when they converted to their cause. Most protestors (bar the burnt out loser hippie professor from the 60's) are under the age of 35 as are most of the terrorists, an age at which they are susceptible to indoctrination. The only difference is the tool used for indoctrination. For the American college student it is the seemingly "something for nothing" attraction of socialism. For the young, affluent muslim, it is radical Islam.

And when given the same choice,

"Hey, Rahib. Do you want to go and get a degree in engineering, go to mosque, raise some kids and maybe some goats?

or...

"Go to the Western Infidel stronghold of London and against insurmountable odds wage an underground, underdog war in an epic and never-ending galactic fight against the evil, villainous forces of Capitalism, Christianity, America and Western Culture in a desperate attempt to convert the people of the world to Islam and destroy those that won't, while you guarantee yourself a position in heaven along with 72 brown-eyed virgins even though you have not the equipment to enjoy them!"

Again, what seems more heroic and romantic and would play to the psychoses of a brainwashed Islamic ego-manic?

Thus, it is the attraction of becoming an instant hero, an instant crusader in a glorious and noble cause that tempts the young and the foolish into joining these causes. They are so spoiled, so catered to throughout their lives that they have not the patience, nor the intellectual rigor nor the honesty to go and confirm if the cause is a practical one, or even a good one. Quite the contrary, they are so greedy, lazy and self-centered whether the cause is a noble one, heck, even if it's an evil one is purely secondary. Who cares if socialism accidentally killed 100 million people prematurely and held billions in poverty. Who cares that Islam has kept billions impoverish and condemned billions of women to the status animals and looks set to rival communism in killing a couple hundred million. Who cares, I'm gettin' me some 72 virgins!

And it is this, that is the epitome of evil, when one's ego supersedes the rights, livelihood and well-being of others. It is the most cowardly, childish, weak-minded and self-serving form of evil I have ever come across. Too demand that your ego be fed to the point that you firebomb suburban developments, or destroy genetically modified trees, or torch Hummer dealerships, or bomb abortion clinics, or fly planes into buildings, or blow up explosives in a subway or a hotel is to be the lowest and most evil life form and is a trait many leftists and all terrorists have in common.

The scary thing is that there is one more similarity between the brainwashed masses of American college students and the muslim nutjobs. And that is they share a common enemy;

America and Capitalism.

Of course how could it be any other way? For America and Capitalism share one thing in common, which is ultimately the true enemy of leftists and terrorists; the truth. For a people that appreciate the truth, seek the truth and then base their actions on the truth, will become the most successful people in the world. The truth is Capitalism is the optimal economic system and America is the result of a people understanding and following that truth.

Alas, it seems that in order to keep their egos intact and well-fed, leftists and terrorists are insistent on destroying America and Capitalism.

But never fear, for at the forefront of the battle against socialists and terrorists will always be that dashingly handsome and sexy beast of an economist, Captain Capitalism...that and the combined powers of the US Armed Forces, CIA, FBI, and NSA.

25 comments:

Karl Hungus said...

How does it feel to wrong all the time? I need to know.

Bucktowndusty said...

Here, here. I concur.

Peter Thurley said...

Karl, if I read you correctly, that comment is pointed at the dear Captain? Becsause I too have the very same question...

Captain Capitalism said...

Don't make the mistake of assuming I'm talking about all leftists, just some.

DMKhldibo said...

Hey, now

not ALL Seattlites are leftist, grunge, plaid wearing extremists.

but I've seen a lot here.

I think it's the rain

Jonathan said...

Why are you associating people in college with leftism? That just isn't true.

It isn't like college professors are agreeing with Iran that the holocaust didn't exist. I mean would be extreme.

Oh crap. Spoke too soon.

David_Z said...

Because blogger won't let me use an IMG tag in cmoments: L. O. Fucking. L.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm . . . considering leftists get slammed all the time for making unsupported claims about causes they are gung-ho for, I'd love to see you cite some sources for every "factual" statement you've made here. You'll need at least 30 or so . . .

Al said...

I thought of an analysis something like this, years ago, with regard to the Columbine killers. They needed to be heroes, or at least people who made something happen. Supervillains are "cool" too. Maybe cooler.

Do you attract a bunch of WTO protesters here, or what?

The Middle-Wing Wacko said...

You have an interesting point, but I think you go a bit far and overlook a few important details in your very entertaining indictments.

Yes it is true that most college-age "activists" are long on naive ideology and short on meaningful experience. But you ignore the possible counterargument that the youth and inexperience you are sneering at is also, in its way, a qualification.

It could be said that after a certain point in life, a person becomes jaded and inextricably linked with a corrupt and imperfect system. As an "experienced and wise adult" you have probably learned to passively accept a million small injustices that the naive and inexperienced eyes of youth will notice and react with outrage.

Why? Because you have responsibilities. A personal investment in the system as it exists. 35...interesting date...isn't that about when the mid-life crisis usually occurs? Realization that the potential of youth, and the hopes and dreams that it included, has been pawned off piece by piece for stability and comfort.

I'm not saying the college-kid activists are right. They are inexperienced and totally lacking in the necessary skills to set right the injustices they see. The solutions they propose will be dramatic but probably counterproductive. But that's the ignorance that comes with innocence. Attacking them for that and saying it's all about their egos is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You don't have to agree with them, but the naivette of youth is and ought to be a valued part of the national moral compass... tempered by the practical wisdom of those with experience, but not squelched by it.

Al said...

Bummed by the imperfect system, eh... uh, Middle-Wing? (It'd be immoderate to call you the noun in your handle.) Socialism and all the "Third Ways" I've seen are even less perfect. When we're all omniscient, we'll do better.

I have a post on what's wrong with the best system in the world at http://oldwhig.blogspot.com/2006/04/want-to-rail-against-capitalism-as.html.

I'm not sure Aaron would agree.

Al said...

OK Middle-Wing, you asked for it. If I can, here's the whole thing:

Want to rail against Capitalism as actually practiced?

The Mises Institute has a piece out today, "The Organization of Debt into Currency: On the Monetary Thought of Charles Holt Carroll," by Robert Blumen, explaining why fractional reserve banking is fraud. The whole world's monetary system[s] are based on it, and it has some major problems. [What are you talking about?! Everything's fine!]

It may help to keep in mind that there are [up to] three people in the two kinds of transactions: the depositor, the banker/creditor, and the debtor. The fraud comes in when the debtor is handed a depositor's money by the banker... Well, here:

Fractional reserve banking is a term describing the capital structure of a bank that has loaned funds that were placed there on deposit. This is problematic because deposit and loan transactions are fundamentally different. A deposit is a contract for the storage of currency in the bank to be held in safekeeping and returned immediately on demand. The deposited funds must be available at all times should the depositor wish. In contrast, a loan is a transfer of ownership and availability for a definite term. The creditor in a loan transaction has the right to invest the funds, and pays the depositor a rate of interest. These two types of contracts are mutually exclusive from a legal point of view. [2]

When funds placed on deposit are handled as if they were loans to the bank, then the bank will attempt to earn a return on the deposits by loaning them out or otherwise investing them, while at the same time maintaining the promise of immediate availability to the depositor. In such a case, the new debtors are issued on-demand claims for the principal value of their loan, indistinguishable from the claims of the depositor whose money they have borrowed. The bank has created multiple immediate-demand claims for the same gold coins. These new notes (at least for a time) circulate at parity with their face value in gold, and therefore function as currency.

[Charles Holt] Carroll advanced several brilliant arguments against the system of "fictitious money": that it is based on a confusion in thinking; that it creates a state of permanent indebtedness; that it leads to national impoverishment rather than prosperity; that it results in price inflation; and that it inevitably leads to bank runs and then to systemic banking crises; and that it unjustly redistributes wealth from the honest and industrious to bankers and their accomplices. We will examine what he had to say on each of these.

Emphasis mine. The point is that the depositor is not the same as an investor. An investor relinquishes his claim on the money for a time. That would be like buying a CD. A perfectly honest transaction.

When you buy stocks or bonds from a company, then sell it the next day, you're not getting a refund from the company, generally, you're selling it to somebody else. Nor can you expect to draw the monetary value of the stock from that same company while retaining ownership of the stock. A bank might accept it as collateral, of course... Well, I guess that's a bad example that just makes the matter more complicated. It certainly doesn't refute the point that someone who expects to be able to withdraw all his money within moments of depositing it is NOT an investor. And investing his money AND simultaneously giving it back to the depositor is fraud. It would be literally impossible with solid money.

In any case, the article is a clear explanation of, probably, the biggest difficulty Austrians have with other economics schools. It is the fundamental flaw in Capitalism today.

Dark Wing Duck said...

Great Post ! Dr. Sanity has posted something up about narcissim recently. Both of these posts should be combined and fleshed out into a book. There are certainly enough examples to make your case. Michelle Malkin's "Unhinged" also documented the hair trigger violence that these activists engage in when someone else doesn't follow thier script.

The Middle-Wing Wacko said...

Interesting post Al, I don't think I've heard the banking/loaning business described quite like that. It's a bit sneaky, although by now I should hope most people understand their money doesn't sit in a safe somewhere (to quote "It's a Wonderful Life"). And also somehow I suspect the banks have their butts covered quite adequately as far as legality goes.

Seane-Anna said...

Amen CC!!! I couldn't said it better myself.

Anonymous said...

I have met many many college students and professors in my life. They were all Left leaning and uninformed on how things work in the real world.

Same in the arts world. My business has had me working with those groups for most of my like.

It is rare to meet a conservative in those areas of endeavor for two reasons.

1. There aren't many of them. Most of those folks are headed for either failed artist or government worker careers. Boring and mind destroying.

2. Those who are there, are so intimidated by the oh-so caring and diversity welcoming Left that they simply keep their mouths shut.

Once past the stupidity of the youth crowd, the conservatives get on with their lives and find adult peer groups with whom they can relate and enjoy.

Not much time for city-destroying protests on the right. They are too busy feeding their families and building things.

Good post CC

EBD said...

Great post, Cap-i-tan. An instant classic.

Verily.

Anonymous said...

I agree a lot of these terrorists seemed to have been spoiled by their families (and of course they don't have to share the attention and money for education with the girls in the family since the girls don't count). I also think they are warped by this separation of the sexes - I mean talk about frustration. But mostly they are indoctrinated by imans!

sean foley said...

I agree with CC.

I also think that Al Gore and other prominent environmental crusaders are the personification of egotism-driven leftism. Gore is all ego.

Neo Conservative said...

*
hey, cap... you big, heartless meanie... you stop picking on my buddy... the noble "grey owl".

*

Anonymous said...

We have a saying in Canada (I'm paraphrasing): "If your not a radical in your twenties you have no heart, if you're still a radical in your forties you have no brain."

Mind you, this does not explain why so many young people are voting Conservative now days...

arctic_front said...

jgriffin316:

Aren't you GLAD these young people are voting Conservative? I know I am!

Socialism is self-defeating in every place its employed. It is a fast, or slow-motion, slide into oblivion. The E.U. is finding that out right now. The costs of socialism is so great that they can't sustain it without massive immigration to pay for it. Canada is heading in the same direction right behind them. The ramifications are frightening.

Getting something for nothing sure sounds like a good idea until you have to pay the piper. No matter how attractive it sounds, there is still no such thing as a free lunch.

Less Government. Less Taxes. Less need for welfare. More personal responsibility. More wealth for everybody that choses to contribute to the society-at-large.

Pay your own way!

Anonymous said...

The original quote was if you are not a liberal in your twenties you have no heart. If you are not a conservative in your thirties you have no brain.

If this article doesn't make sense to you then you are not paying attention. Screw pointless activism I'd rather go fishing at least that way if I don't accomplish anything I still had a good day.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps someone should figure out how to enlist these children in a cause to legitimize and promote capitalism since it's now under full assault.

Paul Thompson said...

Socialism and particularly it's secular religion - Communism is the enemy. Islam is the weapon. They are two polar-opposite ideologies bent on achieving the same goal: The destruction of Western Christian civilisation. If they were to achieve hegemony, they would immediately be at each-others' throat and the world that would emerge from that cataclysm would be far worse than anything Greta could imagine.

The light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel is that young people have always gravitated to "edgy" ideologies, usually as a "Fuck-you" to their parents' generation. The Lefts' problem, is that Socialism and its derivatives are now the older generations' ideology (the Establishment / the "Man") and the new radicals, are Conservatives or nationalists. The pendulum is swinging back, and that's what's behind the Lefts' desperate, batshit-crazy antics.