Politeness is not truth.

Ann Coulter is doubleplusnogoodthink in Obamaspeak. At time her nicotine filled New Yorker (sorry, Ann, but Connecticut is a superb of Gotham) grates, but as Andrew says she believes aplogising is wrong…

But the whole way liberals work is to redefine manners and morals in such a fashion that conservative common sense automatically becomes hateful. If you note that women and men are different, you’re misogynistic. If you denounce the destruction of marriage in black communities, you’re racist or moralistic. If you call for the defense of America against the world-wide Islamist menace, you’re a bigoted warmonger. If we take this garbage seriously even for an instant, we spend our whole lives playing catch-up, saying sorry, going on defense.

via Klavan On The Culture » Misconstruing Miss Coulter.

What the Obamaborg beleives is that if they say YAY it is alright and if htey say BOO it is wrong. This is very primitive ethics. The Philistines approved of sacrifiving children … the Inca of sacrificing entire villages. That is wrong. and no amount of cheering can make ir right. The Yay|Boo ethica position is discussed, along with nihil ad hominem, post hor propter hoc and nihil ad naturam as classical errors in logic that one should remove by the enf of one’s freshman year.

So why do they still exist? The answer was given, by Francis Schaeffer when he pointed that modernism was irrational and “modern man has both feet firmly in the air”. The post modernists took this to the logical extreme of fracturing meaning as successfully as Joyce fractcured English in Finnegan.

SInce most liberals are not prepared to look at the ancient knowledge — a position pointed to us by Falluci, Ratzenberger, Guinness and McIntyre (and although at least two of those are practising Christiaons, Falluci’s duscussion of Christian ethics leading to a foundation for secular nobility is a fuideline for those who queruloursly resist the Church) — they are left with irrationaily, emotion, or submission to a nonwestern theology. Most of the intellectuals are not able to cope with the rigors of Buddhism, and end up relying on feelings.

But we are mammals Our feelings are distorted by our physiology, by our circumstances. This philosophy has no consolation, except the primitve ability to project hatred to those outside the clibb. The intellectual has now become the slave of a demogogue: a person who will beleive anything

Excellent article, By the standards of the Obamaborg, of course, Marx was a Tory, as this quote attests.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation.

via A special report on the new middle classes in emerging markets: Burgeoning bourgeoisie | The Economist.

The Obamaborg, however, detests the middle class. By claiming to be “for the people” but keeping the power of representing the people to themselves, they are making a new aristocracy, which (as in the ancien regieme) has a fundamental preference for barbarism, and holds the middle class  in contempt.