Эсхатон особенно близок!

[ded_maxim]

Почитав постинги и комментарии некоторых лжеюзеров по поводу известных политических событий, я подозреваю, что скоро начнутся перебои с фольгой, ЕВПОЧЯ. Ссылок приводить не буду, ибо "если ты долго смотришь в бездну, то ..."

Comments

[aite.livejournal.com]

Слушай, я у себя сделала группу "Moderate and Liberal" (лаяться нету сил, не хочу негатива) и собираюсь написать туда про выборы (личное). Тебя туда включать?

[ded-maxim.livejournal.com]

Ну дык.

[aite.livejournal.com]

Ну, кто тебя знает. Ты такой dry and sarcastic, а там будут всякие сопли и цитаты от К.

[ded-maxim.livejournal.com]

Did you mean dry or droll? :)

[aite.livejournal.com]

Да, пожалуй, droll, но для меня достаточно, чтобы стеснятся рассказывать сентиментальные штучки. Но я тебя запишу. В "список". Хе-хе.

[ded-maxim.livejournal.com]

Я буду хорошо себя вести, обещаю.

[ala-ina.livejournal.com]

what the deal with the foil?! fess up!

[nnikif.livejournal.com]

полезно против инопланетных лучей, контролирующих сознание:

[ala-ina.livejournal.com]

aaaaaaaaaaaa -)

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

Да ну. Если после 2000 и 2004 перебоев с фольгой не было, то и сейчас не будет. А то я помню там Буш должен был вообще отменить выборы а также и все права кроме права на владение оружием, всех несогласных сослать на в гулаги и много-много всякого разного. Если я тебя правильно понял, конечно.

[ded-maxim.livejournal.com]

Все правильно ты понял. Я помню всю эту бодягу: отменят выборы, объявят военное положение, и т.д. Но тогда этот конспирологический компот хотя бы бродил вне мейнстрима. А взять, почитать, скажем, National Review недельной давности, так то же самое, только с противоположным знаком. Бедный Бакли несколько раз перевернулся в могиле (хотя я знаю, ты его недолюбливаешь).

[nnikif.livejournal.com]

А про Клинтона было меньше такого бреда в National Review?

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

Ну во первых там говно бродило конечно не совсем в мейнстриме, но как бы на его изнанке. Huffington Post и Daily Kos это полумейнстрим, примерно так же как National Review. Про The Nation и Village Voice и говорить нечего, равно как и про аналоги Войса в любом городе с населением от 200 тысяч. У меня такое впечатление что те-же люди в NYT и AP пишут одно а в комментариях в DK другое.

Во вторых, я National Review не читаю (может ссылки дашь на те статьи?) но читаю какое-то количество правых блогов. В целом мне кажется что люди разочарованны в результатах выборов но надеются на лучшее, и не предсказывают что Обама типа введет обязательный gay marriage, норму по абортам и прочий чучхе. Мрачные предсказания которые я видел больше сводятся к загубленной экономике и проблемами с внешним миром, и я не могу сказать что я не согласен с этими прогнозами.

[nnikif.livejournal.com]

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/joe-plumber-backs-claim-obama-bring-death-israel/comments/
http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/toast/
http://www.zombietime.com/lefts_big_blunder/
Это практически все на Instapundit транслировалось.
Плюс, для примера:

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

With the exception of the one about Malcolm X being Obama's father, I don't see any of these comparing with the predictions that Bush will cancel elections and put opponents in death camps.

[nnikif.livejournal.com]

They are all batshit crazy anyway. Also, do you actually know how DailyKos works? You can put anything there in 24 hours, the question is not what's there, the question is what gets accepted by the community.

[ded-maxim.livejournal.com]

Well, Mark Steyn on NRO was making dire comparisons to 1934, complete with vague warnings about forced community service and uniformed youth marching in lockstep. Then there's this: http://www.velociworld.com/Velociblog/Oldvelocity/003271.html (the fucked up thing about this particular entry is that it made me want to go and read the Flannery O'Connor novel that it mentions).

On the other hand, there was certainly a great deal of thoughtful conservative criticism of Obama's proposed policies by such guys as Daniel Larison (http://www.amconmag.com/larison). But it's not like there are no sane moderate voices on the left either.

how 'bout this:

[nnikif.livejournal.com]

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/11/06/will-2008-be-the-last-free-election/

Re: how 'bout this:

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

Those both seem like valid concerns to some degree.

Re: how 'bout this:

[nnikif.livejournal.com]

So claiming that Bush will cancel elections is crazy, while claiming that Obama will destroy the democracy in USA is a legitimate concern? The difference is, Obama is evil, while Bush is not, so saying the same things about Obama (and directly comparing him to Hitler, the way Pennsylvania's GOP did in an official message) is very different from saying them about Bush.

Re: how 'bout this:

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

No, the difference is that Obama was mentored by communists, who are known for "one man, one vote, one time."

Re: how 'bout this:

[nnikif.livejournal.com]

And he's also a secret Muslim, a terrorists' best buddy, a dangerous radical, a thug, a pedophile, a drug addict, etc., etc. I get your point. And he also wants to kill 25 millions Americans.

Re: how 'bout this:

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

He wasn't mentored by Frank Marshall Smith? He didn't study Alinsky? I must be taking crazy pills. He didn't hang out with marxists and structural feminists?

Re: how 'bout this:

[nnikif.livejournal.com]

You mean, Frank Marshall Davis? Oh, sure, the fact that Obama's grandfather was friends with some guy and Obama used to hang out with him when he was a kid is a certain sign of a coming Communism. And he also studied Alinsky! Really! Just like Hillary Clinton! Wasn't the Communist Dictatorship established under Bill Clinton enough to understand how dangerous people who study Alinsky are!
And structural feminists! Surely, somebody who hanged out with them must be a monster! Didn't they abolish democracy in France, like, thirty years ago? I mean, with all those philosophers creeping everywhere.

Re: how 'bout this:

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

I am not saying that Obama is a monster. I'm saying that he's the inheritor of a branch of political philosophy which is known for using democratic means for antidemocratic ends. He was a Red Diaper baby, and I see no evidence that he ever rejected the tenets of the philosophy that he grew up and was educated with. He might have mellowed out, or he might be paying lip service to publicly accepted values to gain power. It's a legitimate question, however much you denigrate those who ask.

As far as structural feminists are concerned, thankfully they have not come to power in France. I doubt that Luce Irigaray, who thinks that E=MC(squared) is a sexist equation, would give the institution of democracy the benefit of the doubt.

As far as certain signs of impending communism are concerned, those are your words, not mine or the guys you cited.

Re: how 'bout this:

[nnikif.livejournal.com]

Bush was a right-wing president. Pinochet was a right-wing president. Cheney was a supporter of South African apartheid regime. Reagan supported almost every right-wing dictatorship on the face of the planet. Are those things not enough to make the worries Bush turning into a dictator legitimate?

He was a Red Diaper baby, and I see no evidence that he ever rejected the tenets of the philosophy that he grew up and was educated with.

I've not finished Audacity of hope, but the first few chapters make it 100% clear that he did, indeed, reject tenets of that philosophy. Of course you can always claim that that's all a "lip service". Which is an argument that can't be refuted.

Re: how 'bout this:

[nnikif.livejournal.com]

As far as structural feminists are concerned, thankfully they have not come to power in France. I doubt that Luce Irigaray, who thinks that E=MC(squared) is a sexist equation, would give the institution of democracy the benefit of the doubt.

Are you claiming that Obama is a structural feminist?
Or would you claim that French politicians never have social interactions with structural feminists or some other crazy scholars?

Re: how 'bout this:

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

You think you could maybe squeeze two or three more replies in there?

Re: how 'bout this:

[rivig.livejournal.com]

Ааааа, злые инопланетяне, только не мой мозг!

Why, when the guy sais something you agree with, it is "lip service", but when you disagree - he's evil commie? And, by the way, I suspect that you are much more red by upbringing, you're from Soviet Russia where you was indoctrinated much more seriously than Obama could, aren't you?

Re: how 'bout this:

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

because the stuff he says that I agree with and the stuff he says that I disagree with are mutually contradictory. It's impossible to honestly believe both at the same time.

I'm not running for president or any position of power, so my biography is not interesting to anybody. However, if it were to become a matter of interest, I'd say that I left Russia when I was six, so the indoctrination I received was limited to stories about what a good guy Lenin was in grade school. I'd also say that instead of going to law school and being a community organizer, I served as a paratrooper. By their fruits shall ye know them.

Re: how 'bout this:

[ded-maxim.livejournal.com]

ZOMG, structural feminists! OH NOES! ГОЛАКТЕГО ОПАСНОСТЕ! (It's "structuralist", by the way.) So far the only anti-science sentiment we've heard was from Sarah "Lowry's Little Starbursts" Palin, who seems to have nothing but disdain for basic research. Fruit flies, pshaw. Never mind that many modern breakthroughs in genetics came from studying ... wait for it ... fruit flies. Obama, on the contrary, has so far shown himself to be a hard empiricist. This is evident, for example, from the list of economists he has surrounded himself with, including Larry Summers, the man whom any structuralist feminist would view as Teh Satan for certain remarks he had made that cost him the presidency at Harvard. So no, I'm not worried that structuralist feminists are taking over the Obama administration.

Re: how 'bout this:

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

1. It's "structural" according to Obama. ""To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

2. Obama has not shown himself to be much of anything yet, since he hasn't been in a leadership position. Conversely, I don't remember hearing about Palin stripping funding from Alaskan researchers.

Re: how 'bout this:

[ded-maxim.livejournal.com]

1. I stand corrected. I haven't read Dreams From My Father. Either "structural" or "structuralist" seems to be fine (2,330 vs. 3,340 Google hits, respectively).

2. I've read Obama's policy papers and I've read guys like Cass Sunstein and Larry Summers, who have his ear. So far, what I have seen is that Obama surrounds himself with competent and pragmatic experts. Being a techie nerd, that's something I respect and admire. People like Daniel Larison (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/11/06/rahm-emanuel/) or John Cole (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=13549) don't seem to doubt that Obama will govern from the center. You may go ahead and look for signs of Impending Socialist Doom (tm); I just hope that you don't end up sounding like these dudes (http://arbat.livejournal.com/313487.html?thread=11332751#t11332751).

As for Palin -- no, she didn't strip funding from Alaskan researchers (can she even do that?). But I take the long view. What I see is contempt for disinterested expertise, carefully disguised as "anti-elitism". What I see is her appointing a high school classmate to the top of Alaska's Division of Agriculture, her only qualification being her professed "love of cows". What I also see is McCain's sneering remarks about studying "grizzly bear DNA". All of this points to one thing, once again: disdain for disinterested expertise.

Re: how 'bout this:

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

I have become leary of disinterested expertise because on most issues with any social traction and big budgets at stake, most of the experts have an agenda. From the Great Society to the food shortages and ice age that were being forecast in the 1970's, to global warming (er, I mean, climate change,) to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, we've seen time and time again that people with very prestigious academic pedigrees and positions make the wrong prediction with absolute aplomb. This is not unique to academia, by the way-national intelligence has done the same thing repeatedly, for instance, with Saddam's WMD's. Obama has surrounded himself with people like the former leadership of Freddy and Fanny. Why should this impress me?

Do I think that Obama is going to declare a socialist dictatorship like some of the people you quoted? No, but I think that he will push legislation that's going to be very bad for the economy and for private liberty, in classic soft socialist style. He might lose the war in Iraq (I'm not sure that it's losable by anything America does at this point, but if it is, he'll do it,) and will probably fuck up Afghanistan as well, based on his failure to understand counterinsurgency strategy thus far. I hope not. Anyway, if any of this makes me eligible for the tinfoil hat brigade, that's cool. But I remember people caterwauling "fuck middle America!" and "I'm moving to France!" after the last election.

Re: how 'bout this:

[nnikif.livejournal.com]

You do understand, do you, that under the criteria you use, the only political agenda Sarah Palin could have was preparation for the Second Coming of the Jesus Christ?

Re: how 'bout this:

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

1) Mainstream christianity has long been for the separation of church and state, and I see no reason Palin would be different.

2) If the 20th century was full of examples of apocalyptic christians acquiring power and brutally suppressing dissent, I would worry about Palin.

Re: how 'bout this:

[nnikif.livejournal.com]

1) Doesn't the fact that Palin's church (witch-hunting, tongue-speaking, apocalypse-preparing, blaming Jews for the Palestinian terror and speaking against separation of church and states) was anything but mainstream change anything.
2) Hm, I wonder, were there in 20th century any effective examples of the dangers of the Islamic theocracy before the Islamic revolution in Iran?

Re: how 'bout this:

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

1. She's not a Pentecostal.

2. No. So?

Re: how 'bout this:

[nnikif.livejournal.com]

1. She was a Pentecostal not long ago. Her being a Pentecostal is much closer to the current moment than Obama hanging out with Marxists and feminists.

2. So. The fact that something never happened doesn't mean that something can't happen.

Again, I'm not seriously claiming that Palin would try to bring in Apocalypse, I merely say that the idea that she would try to do this has about as much basis in reality as the idea that Obama would try to destroy democracy in USA.

Re: how 'bout this:

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

1. Not if you count the good Reverend God Damn America.

2. I'm looking at probabilities. My concern that something is gonna happen is directly proportional to its probability. Precedent is a major indicator.

Re: how 'bout this:

[nnikif.livejournal.com]

1. Is Rev. Wright a Marxist or a feminist? And what's the point about "God Damn America" anyway? Is not the Bible full of prophets disparaging Israel?

2. Well, good for you. How probable is somebody not knowing that Africa is not a country running for VP? Not very, but this is what happened. How probable is this woman, were she to become a president, freaking out and pushing the Red Button? Not very? Why?

You have your bias, great. But to claim that the righty conspiracy theories are sane, while the lefty ones are crazy is just pathetic. After all, Bush did a lot of things that were deemed unimaginable before they turned out to be true.

Re: how 'bout this:

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

1. Reverend Wright is a radical with a mishmash of post-Marxist views.

2. I very much doubt that Palin did not know that Africa was not a continent.

3. The leftist conspiracy theories have been shown to be crazy by the last 8 years. We'll see about the rightist ones. I don't know of anything Bush did that was "deemed unimaginable."

[wsobchak.livejournal.com]

Great, you found one Russian immigrant who thinks this. What does this have to do with the mainstream?

[anonimo-cobarde.livejournal.com]

My fault. I read what sowa wrote only moments ago and was so captivated by it that I did not read your posting closely enough before excitedly hitting "reply".

[j-pinchikov.livejournal.com]

Я боюсь фольгой не обойтись, нужна жесть:

http://media.livejournal.com/455314.html

[ded-maxim.livejournal.com]

А-a-a, фан-клуб кардинала Ратцингера. Как же, как же.

[ded-maxim.livejournal.com]

Я, кстати, только сейчас обнаружил в твоем журнале вот этот эпический тред (http://j-pinchikov.livejournal.com/102907.html?thread=1372923#t1372923). Прекрасная иллюстрация к недавней записи (http://m-p.livejournal.com/442437.html) m_p, можно сказать, каноническая.