Why do Vile Progs hate the future?


Mark Steyn:

President of the Future

One of the reasons why Barack Obama is regarded as the greatest orator of our age is that he’s always banging on about some other age yet to come — e.g., the Future! A future of whose contours he is remarkably certain and boundlessly confident: The future will belong to nations that invest in education because the children are our future, but the future will not belong to nations that do not invest in green-energy projects because solar-powered prompters are our future, and most of all the future will belong to people who look back at the Obama era and marvel that there was a courageous far-sighted man willing to take on the tough task of slowing the rise of the oceans because the future will belong to people on viable land masses. This futuristic shtick is a cheap’n’cheesy rhetorical device (I speak as the author of a book called “After America,” whose title is less futuristic than you might think) but it seems to play well with the impressionable Obammysoxers of the press corps.

And so it was with President Obama’s usual visionary, inspiring, historic, etc., address to the U.N. General Assembly the other day: “The future must not belong to those who bully women,” he told the world, in a reference either to Egyptian clitoridectomists or the Republican party, according to taste. “The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians,” he added. You mean those Muslim guys? Whoa, don’t jump to conclusions. “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam,” he declared, introducing to U.S. jurisprudence the novel concept of being able to slander a bloke who’s been dead for getting on a millennium and a half now. If I understand correctly the cumulative vision of the speech, the future will belong to gay feminist ecumenical Muslims. You can take that to the bank. But make no mistake, as he would say, and in fact did: “We face a choice between the promise of the future or the prisons of the past, and we cannot afford to get it wrong.” Because if we do, we could spend our future living in the prisons of the past, which we forgot to demolish in the present for breach of wheelchair-accessibility codes.


But wait! There’s more:

Todd S. Purdam at Vanity Fair:

Reality Checkmate

The least salubrious aspect of the American character is the susceptibility to self-deception. We mythologize ourselves as clear-eyed dwellers of a shining city on a hill, but the fact is: we can’t handle the truth. Because we cannot make peace with our eroding stat­us as the world’s sole remaining superpower—one whose economic dominance is now far from unrivaled in an age of globalization—we retreat to cherished notions of American exceptionalism and ignore all the ways, from educational achievement to social well-being to wise stewardship of resources, in which we are not so super at all. We fight two far-flung wars while, for the first time in history, cutting taxes in the same breath, and then wonder why we’re having a rough go of it. We know at some level that our deficit is unsustainable but can’t agree on what is abundantly clear: that reducing it requires some combination of budget cuts and greater revenues. Meanwhile, the planet is lashed by extreme weather events of singular ferocity (including one that left parts of Washington, D.C., itself blacked out for nearly a week this summer), and yet we debate climate change as if it were a contested theory.

It goes on. Because white births are no longer the majority in a citizenry with deep Anglo-Saxon roots, and because many Americans recoil from this reality, we resist any sensible solution to the problem of the roughly 12 million illegal immigrants living among us and instead build high-tech barriers in a futile effort to stem the flow. Indeed, we are further away from any such solution than we were just six or eight years ago, when George W. Bush and some of his more enlightened Republican allies tried to think seriously about the question but were shot down by conservatives in their own party. The advent of Barack Obama has meant that alarming numbers among us cling not just to God and guns (as Obama once infelicitously put it) but to the conviction that the president must be a foreigner or a Marxist or a Muslim or even the Antichrist, and not merely cool, cerebral, and—oh, yes—black. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life found that the percentage of conservative Republicans who think Obama is a Muslim has more than doubled over the past four years, from 16 percent in 2008 to 34 percent now.

[…]

And yet, like it or not, right under our noses and no matter what we do, some things are changing, and changing forever. There is every evidence that the long era of unquestioned American abundance is ending. We are already not the world’s only important military power, or its sole dominant economic player. In just a few years, we will be a majority-“minority” nation, and we will never be a majority-white nation again. Eventually, we’ll absorb the latest changes—as we have adapted to transformations in the past—but the transition, psychologically and in real terms, will be excruciating in many quarters. Every so often the country does manage to act wisely and with a long-term perspective: in the post–World War II era, America actually forged a remarkable consensus on how to fight the twilight struggle against Communism. Almost 50 years ago, a century after the Civil War, huge bipartisan majorities in Congress managed to grant black Americans full equality in law, if not in the eyes of all their countrymen. But no such consensus has emerged in the post–Cold War world of the past two dec­ades, either on foreign policy or on how to order our affairs at home.

Instead, millions of Americans—including vast numbers of the lower middle class whose futures are grim and who have little ability to adapt—are angered and frightened by the unsettling changes swirling around them. The current conservative establishment of the Republican Party—for whom things are more or less fine (and, indeed, finer than ever) and for whom opposition to any tax increase has become not just ideological but theological—is uniquely situated to play on and exploit such fears, for at least one more electoral cycle or two, in part because the rank and file are uniquely susceptible to the comforting but phony argument “We don’t have to change—why should we?” Demographic factors and an economic vise will put an end to that argument eventually, but not tomorrow.

And here is where political leadership matters most. Can anyone imagine Mitt Romney telling an unpleasant truth, on any topic, to any audience, if he thought it would hurt his electoral prospects? Let’s just say it has yet to happen, and time is short. As for Barack Obama: although he famously has his eye on the long game, or says he does, masterly reassurance is not his stock-in-trade. His clinical explication of our urgent choices has never really sunk in, and his communitarian lecture to business—“You didn’t build that . . . ”—rankled even many who know full well that rugged individualism is only half of any success story in a culture that has always counted on neighborhood barn raising or whatever the modern analogues may be. Telling the truth has all too often been a loser’s game in American politics, as it was for Adlai Stevenson 60 years ago, when he famously said, “Let’s talk sense to the American people. Let’s tell them the truth, that there are no gains without pains.”


Lefties used to love the future. One of the bestselling books of the 19th Century was a utopian novel set in the year 2000 that was written by a socialist. Early science fiction writers imagined a bright future as well. The root of “progressivism” is “progress”.

The opposite of “utopia: is “dystopia“:

A dystopia is the idea of a society, generally of a speculative future, characterized by negative, anti-utopian elements, varying from environmental to political and social issues. Dystopian societies, usually hypothesized by writers of fiction, have culminated in a broad series of sub-genres and is often used to raise issues regarding society, environment, politics, religion, psychology, spirituality, or technology that may become present in the future. For this reason, Dystopias have taken the form of a multitude of speculations, such as Pollution; Poverty; Societal collapse or Political repression and Totalitarianism. Famous depictions of Dystopian societies include Nineteen Eighty-Four, a totalitarian invasive super state; Brave New World, where the human population is placed under a caste of psychological allocation and Fahrenheit 451 where the state burns books out of fear of what they may incite. The Iron Heel was described by Erich Fromm as “the earliest of the modern Dystopian”


By the Sixties and Seventies dystopian fantasies about the future were commonplace. But so were “scientific” studies that described a bleak world with too many people and dwindling resources. Many popular movies were post-apocalyptic, with people living like savages in the ruins of cities. Vile Progs make frequent reference to dystopian books and movies.

Vile Progism is based upon the fundamental premise that they and they alone are the guardians of truth, justice and world peace. They believe that they are true elites – the “best and brightest” that this country has to offer. Mix that with their dystopian view of the future and their authoritarian nature and you have the Nanny State.

It’s for our own good. Seriously.

It’s like when we were kids. “You have to eat your vegetables if you want to grow up big and strong.” That’s what Nanny Statism is. A long list of do’s and don’t’s that we are supposed to live by otherwise bad things will happen.

The ironic part is that the Vile Progs want to shove a huge mountain of debt onto our children and grandchildren. I guess it’s no wonder they think the future will be fucked-up.



Advertisements
This entry was posted in Zombies and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Why do Vile Progs hate the future?

  1. myiq2xu says:

    I’m going back to bed until game time.

  2. driguana says:

    in the future…

  3. Mary says:

    OT New USA Today poll:

    64% of registered Repubs are “more enthusiastic than usual about voting,” compared to 48% of Dems.

  4. yttik says:

    Stuff and nonsense, the future is so bright we have to wear shades 🙂

    I ran away from liberals, Dems, progs, the left, because of all their negativity. Remember the olden days of peace, love, equality? Now it’s, “we’re all going to fry in the fires of global warming hell!”

    People create what they invest themselves in. If we focus all our energy into scarcity, poverty, misery, that’s the future we will create.

    • DeniseVB says:

      I realized after I left the left’s narrative and talking points, I became a much happier person 😀 I don’t know when Question Authority became STFU and fall in line, probably around Hillary’s political lynching in ’08, but the air is much fresher the further I distance myself from hardcore Obama supporting Democrats.

      Nice to be in the company of like minds 🙂

      • driguana says:

        Quite interesting isn’t it? You lose a few “friends” along the way, yelling at you about how stupid you are…….but it’s ok. I find that they do absolutely no research or in-depth investigation of any issue…..they only believe what the progressive media tells them. Then they yell at me again abour how fair NPR is…..yeah, right. What is really problematic though is, how is real change going to occur? I heard someone say the other day what a poor politician Romney is…..well, I kinda like that……would rather have a leader than a politician, or a game show host, at this point. We need leaders who are dedicated to problem solving, not game show host presidents who lead from behind becasue they are so cool.

        • DeniseVB says:

          I was losing friends long before I left the Dem camp. Just refusing to fall in line for Obama was the kiss of death 😉 I spent some time with my “bitter knitter sour grapes” friends at PUMA for awhile. Then they melted away when voting for Obama was the better alternative to that “evil” Republican and “dumb” Sarah.

          So here I am in Independent HappyLand. 😀

        • leslie says:

          Yes.

          Yesterday my neighbor told me that she is tired of defending Israel, “They can take care of themselves”, she said . . . “There will always be wars. Do you really want to defend Israel? . . . Have you ever listened to Ahmadinejad? He makes sense.” She also said, all her friends in the LGTBX community “are happy with what Obama is doing for us. Plus, the newspapers and news programs say that Obama is way ahead”. (I think she tries to bait me. She knows my father’s side of my family is Jewish.)

          YES. I siad if Israel, our long time ally in the ME was under threat from every direction, and Jews were under threat in every nation on earth by ignorant people under the guise of religion or sheer bigotry, I believe it is imperative we stand by them – despite my feelings about war. (She had said she wasn’t willing to go to war for them, even though there were such things as “good wars”.)

          Of course she had not heard about the Benghazi cover-up, and when I told her about it, she said it didn’t matter. It didn’t effect her – or the rest of the US. She didn’t care that the administration lied to us or that MSM covered up for the cover-up. “They are doing the right thing . . . We don’t always have to know what’s happening”.

          To her “Romney is dull and too quiet”. I said he is sober and respectful of people and is a leader rather than a hologram who does little besides golf, lie and raise campaign funds.

          I think she takes offense that I have a Romney sticker on my back door (which she has to see every time she steps onto the porch) . She is part of the 47% that Romney (and I) won’t bother with. (She is also a bigot and when she talks about the violence in the city and now in our suburb, the venom toward the AA community is thick.)

          Sorry for this longwinded comment. (I just deleted another huge memory from yesterday) I’m still picking up the pieces of my brain. They are scattered all over the back porch.

          I’m going out now. I’m getting ready to visit my obot sister, her husband, my brother andhis wife in VT at the end of the week. (I’m buying some anti-venom at the camping supplier to take with me.) I want to be back to watch the F&F report on teevee tonight.

  5. driguana says:

    Regarding the future, has anyone gotten and filled out The American Community Survey sent out by the US Census Bureau? I ask because I refuse to put “White” for my race anymore. I now usually put “European American” in the “Other” space usually provided. Sometimes I put “American”. Any thoughts or comments? I suspect the info from this survey is somehow going to be used to further inflame the vile progs hatred for our future.

    • votermom says:

      I was just talking to my kid about something similar – telling her never to check the race box on any govt (or college application) form.

    • gram cracker says:

      I write in “human” race.

      From a biological and evolutionary point of view humans may have different sub “species” but we are all of the same “race”. Humans from anywhere on planet earth can reproduce viable offspring with other species of humans regardless of skin, hair or eye color or ethnicity.

      The breeding of horses and donkeys can produce a mule but mules can’t reproduce with horses, donkeys or other mules. Human males have fornicated with sheep or goats but all they have gotten is gonorrhea.

    • gxm17 says:

      Me too. I put “ethnically ambiguous” last time. And plan to do the same for any future census. If people are going to assume I’m Hispanic or Middle Eastern then it’s absurd for me to be classified as “white.”

  6. Simofish says:

    DeniseVB – not all of us faded away! I’ve been dumping my FB so called “puma” friends as of late who are supporting Obama. NO WAY I forget May 31st 2008 – NEVER. Plus my friends and I ran the campaign office (we created) for Hillary out of the East Bay. I saw people fall into line after Hillary stepped out … Not us. We are die hards. Hillary is on her own now. We still gather for debate parties and will be together for election night.

  7. myiq2xu says:

    Legal Insurrection:

    It’s very difficult in Ithaca or Rhode Island to get a sense of how the presidential contest is playing out.

    Because both New York and Rhode Island are sure winners for Obama, there is virtually no advertising on television in these markets for the presidential race. In Ithaca, which draws on the Syracuse and Binghamton television stations, there are plenty of ads for Republican congressional candidates, and few for Democrats; so at least that is good to see.

    If all you heard were the local news stations, which regurgitate the national broadcast networks, you’d think Romney wasn’t even running in the race, except when he does something supposedly wrong. And polls writing Romney’s chances off are recited in 1-3 sentences, and then on to local news.

    Let’s face it, if you get alot of your news from Memeorandum or similar internet news aggregators, you’d get the same feeling. My home page is Google News, and the front page stories linked almost always are from the mainstream media and are negative to Romney’s chances or portraying him in a bad light.

    One has the sense sitting here that there isn’t even a campaign, much less a contest.

  8. myiq2xu says:

    There’s gotta be better than Ezra Klein:

    Why Obama abandoned audacity

    If you had to sum up Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign in one word, you might have picked the word “audacity.”

    It was audacious to believe a first-term senator from Illinois could become president. It was audacious to think a politician no one knew before the 2004 Democratic convention could overcome the Clinton machine. It was audacious to think a young black man with the middle-name “Hussein” could be elected president. It was audacious to think that a Democrat who’d always opposed the Iraq War and had no foreign-policy experience could beat a popular war hero while we were still mired in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Obama knew it. “Audacity” is the word he picked to describe his campaign. He even titled his book “The Audacity of Hope.”

    If you were going to pick a single word to define President Obama’s reelection campaign, you definitely would not settle on “audacity.”

    Watch the video atop this post. It’s an unusual two-minute ad that the Obama campaign is running in battleground states. “During the last weeks of this campaign, there will be debates, speeches and more ads,” Obama says. “But if I could sit down with you, in your living room or around the kitchen table, here’s what I’d say.”

    This is, in other words, the fullest argument the Obama campaign is likely to present to swing-state voters. And it’s a strange argument. It’s not just a cautious case for Obama’s reelection. There’s nothing unusual about a timid politician. What’s odd is that it’s a timid argument for a president whose ideas are not timid. It’s an argument meant to obscure the fact that Obama has better, bigger ideas than the ones he’s telling you about.

    Typically, campaigns try to make incumbents look bigger than they really are, to overstate the scope of their accomplishments and their policies. Obama’s campaign is trying to make the president look smaller than he is, to underplay their accomplishments and, in particular, the scope of their policies.

    Take the economic plan Obama lays out in the above ad. Create a million new manufacturing jobs. Help businesses double their exports. Cut taxes for companies that invest in America. Cut oil imports in half. Produce more American-made energy. Train 100,000 new math and science teachers. Cut the growth of higher-education tuition. Reduce the deficit by $4 trillion. Use half of the savings from ending the Afghanistan war to invest in America.

    If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the same agenda that Obama laid out in his convention speech. What’s unusual about it is that, if you know what the Obama administration has actually proposed and done, this isn’t their best agenda. Nothing on this list, for instance, would do nearly as much to create jobs as the American Jobs Act. Nothing on this list will do nearly as much to help ordinary Americans as simply protecting the Affordable Care Act until it begins insuring people in 2014.

    The Obama team knows all that, of course. There’s a reason they’re playing down the audacity of their first term and deemphasizing the policies that they think would do the most to help in a second. The American people, their research shows, are tired of audacity and skeptical of big ideas. They’re willing to believe Obama has done about the best job he could have been expected to do given the collapse of the global economy and the intransigence of the Republicans. But if they’re going to believe that, they’re also not willing to believe that he’s got all the answers now, or that his next big idea is the one that will really turn all this around. If they’re going to lower their expectations, he needs to be more realistic in his promises.

    And so the Obama campaign is downsizing its ideas, at least for the remainder of the campaign. Call it the audacity of not telling people to hope for too much. Better to underpromise and, if all goes well, overdeliver, then to overpromise and lose the election.

    What I can’t believe is that Ezra gets paid to write that drivel.

    I write way better drivel than that and I don’t get paid.

  9. Good post, but I would argue with your “eat your vegetables” analogy. At least eating your vegetables is good for you. The shit these vile progs are suggesting bears no resemblance to anything good at all. It’s straight up poison. I would liken it more to the Jim Jones “Drink your kool aid” approach.

  10. myiq2xu says:

    I think my head exploded

  11. HELENK says:

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/democratic_national_committee_predicts_evR1gr8P6vBzgkMxDxvx7N

    DNC : Romney will win the first debate

    why do they sound like pool hustlers??

  12. DandyTiger says:

    The expectations game for the debates is fascinating.

    Reality: for challengers all they have to do is show they’re serious, presidential, and have leadership material. That is, for a contender, you have to seem like you should be in the race. That’s a low hurdle. In a content where most people think we’re going in the wrong direction, that’s the only thing stoping lots of people from voting for change.

    Obama campaign even lower hurdle: Romney has been defined as a person who murders people and will put black people in chains if he gets elected. So this time around, the contender has an even lower bar, he only has to seem better than a cold blooded murder.

    MSM delusion: Obama can coast, doesn’t have to do anything, just has to not obvious blow it. And by obviously, they mean in a way their lies and spin can’t disguise. Romney on the other hand has to knock it out of the park. Not only that, he has to knock it out of the park in the first 90 seconds. I shit you not, that’s what they’re saying. IOW: Romney has already lost the first debate.

    Mixed in with these expectations, and even with the impossible MSM standards, they’re even saying Romney will win the first debate. WTF?

  13. bluestate says:

    if you’re supporting obama, you kind of have to resign yourself on some level that the future is gonna be pretty fucking shitty. that’s one of the things that troubles me the most about him being president. his support is so heavily based in the cult of personality, and not in reality. it’s just about him. it’s not about his policies or ideological concerns, because by that standard, there is plenty of room for criticism from the left. his supporters, and you can include the entire msm in that, are like, “we support obama no matter what he does.” it’s fucking terrifying.

Comments are closed.