Modernity and Horsef**thers

We find ourselves, we private citizens and ordinary folk of Western nations, increasingly under siege from a large coalition of, for lack of a better general term, collectivist, pseudo-Marxist "Povertarians." I use the term frequently, though it's not well-known and less understood. Briefly, "Povertrianism" refers to a concerted campaign among collectivists to return Man to a usual historical state of being a farm animal. That attempt, or desire, is "reactionary," that term coming to us from those who reacted violently to the French Revolution, meaning those who were against the revolutionary "progress" of the Revolution.

Today, those who deem themselves "Progressives" are indistinguishable from yesteryear's reactionaries. We see these would-be aristocrats in government, journalism, the academy, and so on: our intelligentsia, attempting to destroy the personal wealth of individuals to the point that men are not able to care for their own needs and those of their families and communities. It is a return, this reactionary programme, to the feudal ages. Man, without money, without a money economy, becomes again a peasant, tied to the land, incapable of free movement in search of his own needs and wants, what we might loosely call personal freedom.

It is an attempt to make all men "poor but spiritual" rather than the greedy, Earth-destroying things we are as free people in a money, that is to say a capital, marketplace. I call this reactionary, so-called Progressive, programme Povertarianism.

Take away, for example, a man's car and one has condemned a man to moving half the distance from home that he can walk in a day. He still has to get home at night. No car, no go no where.

In himself a man has no horse power. Horses have that, but not men. Man is not an efficient beast of burden. To the extent he is and to the extent there is nothing better than human labour, slavery results. No horse power, no freedom for men. Thus, I find myself lauding oil companies as saviours of Human Freedom. Go figure. But without them, and this seems to be a big push among Progressives, we will end up stuck on the farm with no money to move away from our oppression, stuck with whatever treatment the State wishes to impose on us. Many collectivists claim they don't like oil companies because they create conditions of ecological catastrophe. I think they lie. I think they would be quite happy with ecological catastrophe if only it were to provide them with further power over the common man. If we were to ban oil companies, ban cars, ban the works, we'd still see pollution, and poverty that would induce tears of joy in the Povertarian. We'd be starving peasants again, probably incapable of the violence of the French Revolution. For the Povertarian, what's not to love? This infantalisation of the masses, like taking the kid's car keys to punish him, is the nature of our governments' actions against us as free people. Locked down, impoverished, dependent on government for our every need. I call foul.

Let's turn to pollution, here in the form of horse manure. I bring this to our attention so we can see just how good it is to live in a Modern world. We really don't need ecology types telling us that we have to stop being wealthy. They can have it. To me, likely to you, ecology and anti-Modernism is a steaming pile of ... well, you'll see.

A one thousand pound horse produces approximately fifty pounds of manure per day or about ten tons per year. In addition, from six to ten gallons of urine is produced which when soaked up by bedding can constitute another fifty pounds daily. Therefore, four horses in stalls can produce 160,000 pounds of manure and wet bedding per year. That is a mountain of manure by anyone's standards.

http://www.horsekeeping.com/horse_management/manure_management.htm

Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences, Dairy and Animal Sciences dept. offers the standard measurement of:

"An average 1,000 pound horse produces nine tons of manure per year. That is approximately fifty pounds per day."
http://www.das.psu.edu/frequently-asked-questions/how-much-manure-does-a-horse-produce

For some vastly different figures at a steep discount, and more information:

Stephen Davies, "The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894," September 2004 • Volume: 54 • Issue: 9; rpt. Foundation for Economic Education. April 28, 2010

A horse will on average produce between 15 and 35 pounds of manure per day. Consequently, the streets of nineteenth-century cities were covered by horse manure. This in turn attracted huge numbers of flies, and the dried and ground-up manure was blown everywhere. In New York in 1900, the population of 100,000 horses produced 2.5 million pounds of horse manure per day, which all had to be swept up and disposed of. (See Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace, Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898 [New York: Oxford University Press, 1999])

[....]

The larger and richer that cities became, the more horses they needed to function. The more horses, the more manure. Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure. Moreover, all these horses had to be stabled, which used up ever-larger areas of increasingly valuable land. And as the number of horses grew, ever-more land had to be devoted to producing hay to feed them (rather than producing food for people), and this had to be brought into cities and distributed—by horse-drawn vehicles. It seemed that urban civilization was doomed.

[....]

*See Joel Tarr and Clay McShane, “The Centrality of the Horse to the Nineteenth Century American City,” in Raymond Mohl, ed., The Making of Urban America (New York: SR Publishers, 1997), pp. 105–30. See also Ralph Turvey, “Work Horses in Victorian London” at www.turvey.demon.co.uk.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past-the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894/

This is interesting in that in 1792 when William Moorecroft opened the first veterinary surgery at 224 Oxford St, London, there were 150,000 horses in London alone, (over a quarrter million by the 1820s.)

See Paul Johnson, The Birth of the Modern. London: Phoenix Giant; rpt. 1996; p. 713.

Freedom means a number of things we might not immediately see in it. It's not a luxury. It's the difference between life and death. When we give up our freedoms we'll soon find ourselves buried alive under tonnes of manure. Our struggle isn't just against Islam, though Muslims are the stick our elitist Philosopher Kings like to use to beat us with, it's against the elitists themselves; but it's as much a matter of fighting our own need not to make trouble. Like oil, freedom isn't free. If we want either, we have to pay.

See also: http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/2010/04/power-to-people.html

Plato: Biggest Scammer in History

Neil Postman rightly refers to Plato as the world's first systematic fascist. Making mention of that usually raises the ire of those who don't have any idea of Plato's philosophies. Most people seem to highly regard the name "Plato," though they can't really say why. They defend him with no knowledge of what Plato was about. Some, such as that utter fool, I.F. Stone, confuse Plato with Socrates, and not only don't know there is the one and there is the other, but argue that Socrates is Plato. Stupidity knows no bounds, especially among our intelligentsia. Some thinkers, real thinkers, as opposed to the Conformity Hippies who rule the Academy these days as well, real thinkers such as Ernest Gellner, know Plato very well. Gellner, writing after Karl Popper, who wrote on Plato, The Open Society and its Enemies, puts Plato on the table for a nifty dissection, briefly thus:

"The profound paradox of Platonism proper is that it preached a return to, or a fortification of, the closed communally organized society: but it did so by means which themselves illustrated, highlighted, and sprang from that liberation from traditional ritualism and communalism. Plato represented dogmatism pursued by liberal means, an authoritarianism with a rational face." Ernest Gellner, Plough, Sword and Book. London: Collins Harvill: 1998; pp. 84-85.

Taken in, that's what too many of our intellectuals have been are to this day and beyond. We'll see one of them below. And a shameful example of a typical intellectual conformist he is. There is no excuse for an expert in the field to be so wrong on the facts as is the writer below. But if he were merely a fool, and a sloppy one at that, who would care? No, dear reader, it's far worse than that. The writer below is a danger to human freedom and to free people everywhere. We must confront him and those like him, stop them by making known the realities of history and literature from the texts as they are, not as one thinks they must be or should be, or should be thought so by the "average" man.

Kimon Valaskakis, "Media-enhanced 'dumb democracy' is the fastest road to totalitarianism." Globe and Mail; October 13, 2008.

Winston Churchill once argued that democracy is the worst political system except for all the others. While there is no viable alternative to democracy, contemporary flaws in the system - what I call "dumb democracy" - threaten to weaken it and produce counterproductive results. These flaws have become, alas, increasingly prevalent in both the Canadian and U.S. elections. Voters are making momentous decisions on the basis of the most trivial criteria.

The rise of Sarah Palin has been fuelled by her engaging smile and her appeal as a "hockey mom." Despite the constant mocking by the U.S. media deploring her lack of preparedness for high office, she appeals to the average voter, or "Joe Six-Pack American," as she calls him. In the U.S., average voters seem to want an average vice-president or even president to represent them. University professors are looked down on when aspiring for high political office, while celebrities, actors, sports stars and even former professional wrestlers get the nod.

Although this anti-intellectual bias is less predominant in Canada, both American and Canadian voters are very vulnerable to mediatic factors such as body language, winking at the audience, ability to tell jokes and being folksy and cute. This media-enhanced trivialization started in the first television debate between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, and it's been said that JFK won the televised debate because of Mr. Nixon's sweaty face while Mr. Nixon won the radio debate because of his arguments. Today, the spin doctors and image makers try to appeal to the lowest common denominator. We are very far from Plato's philosopher king.

Some may argue that voting on trivial grounds is the prerogative of "the people," but this argument does not withstand analysis.

"The people" are made up of human beings. To err is human and, if one person can make a mistake, so can millions. There is no safety in numbers. The assumption that a majority of 50 plus 1 is always right and 50 minus 1 is always wrong is quite obviously absurd. The ancient Athenians and the fathers of modern democracy warned against populism's dangers.

"The people" change their minds all the time, as polls demonstrate. The Americans who elected and re-elected George W. Bush obviously regret their choice, since he is at 25 per cent in the approval ratings. Even John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has distanced himself from Mr. Bush as much as possible. If a voter's opinion is exclusively decided on the basis of spin doctors' sound bites, huge blunders may be committed by the electorate - which will have to live with its mistake for four long years.

The outcome of the U.S. election affects the whole world, not just in economic terms but in issues of life and death. How many people have died around the world because of Mr. Bush's decisions? The privilege of empire must carry with it a greater sense of responsibility. The U.S. voter from the Midwest or Deep South must realize his or her decision has global implications and act accordingly.

So what can we conclude? Governance is much too serious a challenge in an interdependent world to be left to superficial criteria. Would you entrust your future to a person who doesn't answer your questions but just winks at you? Would you fly with an untrained pilot just because he reminds you of yourself ? Would you undergo an operation by an unqualified surgeon because he is charismatic?

A condition of intelligent democracy is intelligent and well-informed voters. It is the task of the media to inform the voters, but it also the task of the voters to take elections more seriously. Voting is a right, but it is also a privilege that must be used wisely because, when all is said and done, "dumb democracy" is the fastest road to totalitarianism.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081013.CODEMOS13//TPStory/Comment

This man lies to you, dear reader. What he would have you believe is his smiling and concerned pose of Velvet Fascism. If you haven't read Plato, if you've missed Popper, if you aren't aware of the story the writer above doesn't tell you, let's take another brief look at Ernest Gellner for the time being.

Platonism is the supreme expression of agro-literate man, of a society endowed with a large and steady food-supply, capable of sustaining a minority elite endowed with the capacity to codify, formalize, and preserve its ethos and cognitive capital. It is stable and aspires to stability; and it is liable to consider radical change pathological. It recognizes and endorses the joint roles of the transcendent and of coercion in securing stability for society. The community is divided into the wise, the aggressive, and the hard-working. (Gellner: p. 118.) And that is it. The Philosopher Kings, the Thugs, and the slaves. Plato offers nothing else-- forever. Any change would be pathological. Platonists, as above, are not our friends: they are the enemies of the people.

The writer above is a fascist, pure and simple. He expresses the latest Platonist variant of Ur-fascism. "Voters are making momentous decisions on the basis of the most trivial criteria." Voters.

For example, and an anti-American one at that: "The rise of Sarah Palin has been fueled by her engaging smile and her appeal as a 'hockey mom'." If you don't get it thus far, how's this? "[S]he appeals to the average voter, or 'Joe Six-Pack American'."

But no; you, dear reader, are not supposed to be insulted by the writer's reference to you as "average" or "Joe Six-Pack." As this pimp tries to stoke your vanities, you are meant to see yourself as one just like the philosopher king above. You are superiour to the fools who like Sarah Palin. The fact that such is a pimp's bit of chicanery is seemingly lost on the good writer above. So, like a pimp, on he goes: "In the U.S., average voters seem to want an average vice-president or even president to represent them."

Average people? According to Plato there are no average people, so the good writer is using a euphemism, one meaning "slaves". The slaves want a slave as political representative. How shocking!

"University professors are looked down on when aspiring for high political office, while celebrities, actors, sports stars and even former professional wrestlers get the nod."

No, not Ion! Not an actor! Let us only allow ourselves to be ruled by university professors like the doctor above, Philosopher Kings, those who are smarter and better than the "average" man.

"Although this anti-intellectual bias is less predominant in Canada, both American and Canadian voters are very vulnerable to mediatic factors such as body language, winking at the audience, ability to tell jokes and being folksy and cute."

Canadians aren't generally as stupid as Americans. Thank you, dear writer. Aren't we clever after all? We might even be able to understand conversation, if not a coherent argument; but the rest, the slave masses, they have to rely on the non-verbal, the mediatic. This man is so far removed from common people that he assumes we'll be taken in by pimp talk.

Here he rues away his day: "We are very far from Plato's philosopher king."

No, sir. If only it were so. We are, in fact, in the presence of the typical Left dhimmi fascist would-be Phiospher King. There's no further need to critique this man's pseudo-argument.

"So what can we conclude? Governance is much too serious a challenge in an interdependent world to be left to superficial criteria."

No, I would conclude that governance is much too serious a challenge to leve to Gnostic fools like the one above, and that we must confront fascists like the fool above and defeat him in every venue, in every arena, in every agora. Monstrous evil such as that written by the fool above has no place in a democracy other than in the spittoon of common bar-room. Garbage sophistry posing as intellectual superiority. Don't stand for this. It's filthy and disgusting. To the trash-can of history with foolishness like Platonism. Down with the Philosopher Kings! Off with their shit-filled heads. Long live the Demos! Long live Sarah Palins! Long live Democracy. Long live the Average Person!

Election Night of the Living Dead

"I don't get how people can not vote for Obama. He's so inspiring. Every time I see him I think of the Foo Fighters song, "There goes my hero". That's pretty much because Obama is my hero.

I think he will make this world a better place. I'm pretty sure he will end world hunger and probably AIDS too. I just know he can do all this cause when I hear him speak I get excited on the inside."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081014094746AAd2S8M

I quoted the genius above recently for the sake of the shock value; but I didn't realize then, which I certainly do now, that the shock's on me. Unlike the thrill of the Night of the Living Dead, I'm not enjoying this zombie take-over of the land. In fact, this horror-show is really scaring me. I don't mind being scared, as a rule. I live a pretty rough life, and part of the reason I do so is because it's so scary. But that's my personal life. The nation, that's a different story. That's something far more interesting and important than my own petty doing, no matter how important my petty doings might be to me. Unfortunately, many, maybe more than half of Americans, don't see that their petty doings are no more important to the nation than mine. They seem to think they actually matter to everyone. Sorry, but no one is that important. Nope. Not me, not even you, and especially not that fucking weasel Obama. The beauty of knowing ones one relative unimportance is in the knowing that none are much different, and that we must all go our own ways as well as we can without recourse to demagogues and demiurges to make us feel like we're something bigger than we are. A nation of ordinary folks doing their own thing is what makes the nation so great. That's America. What we see below is from one of Dante's middling circles of Hell. Which one? Maybe the one for self-satisfied gluttons and sloths and card-cheats. Here's our America. Look out, here come the zombies!

Rick Moran, "Meet the people who are going to put Obama in office." American Thinker. 15 Oct. 2008

This is really incredible. It stunned Ben Smith over at Politico where I got these quotes. It floored a GOP consultant who conducted the focus group where the people were quoted.

And it is perhaps the single most depressing thing I've read this entire campaign season:

The GOP consultant emailed Smith about a focus group he just finished conducting. Evidently, he showed a hard hitting ad on Ayers to the group and this was the email he sent:

Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart.

Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.

The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:

54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."

The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack."

I felt like I was taking crazy pills. I sat on the other side of the glass and realized...this really is the Apocalypse. The Seventh Seal is broken and its time for eight years of pure, delicious crazy....

For the first time, I really feel scared about the future. These people are like the Germans in the election of 1933. They know what's coming but they don't care. Back then, all they cared about was that Hitler was going to give them a job and keep their lunch pails full. And stick it to the Jews. And restore Germany's "rightful place" in the world. They knew full well that Hitler would destroy the independent unions, crack down on dissent, and turn Germany from a very free country into a fascist dictatorship.

Part of this is McCain's fault. He bought into that populist crap about greedy Wall Street. Well, so as ye sow, so shall ye reap. And we're about to reap the whirlwind.

In this kind of atmosphere any kind of a government is possible. And I don't know if Obama can resist the kind of raw power these nincompoops are willing to give him. Who could?

You need a license to own a dog but any fool can vote.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/meet_the_people_who_are_going.html

I'm keen of Godwin's Law, i.e. that to call an opponent a Nazi is to lose the argument. I'm not calling Osama Barka supporters Nazis. I refer to them instead a Death Hippies, Conformity Hippies, Povertarians, Irrationalists, Communitarians, and nutters. Many of the intelligentsia in support of Osama are Left dhimmi fascists. Few are going to be Nazis. But many of the above are going to feel emotionally right at home living the nightmare that was Nazi Germany.

First they'll come for Truepeers, then they'll come for Charles-- by which point I hope to be long gone outta here, maybe in some mountain hide-away in the jungles of Paraguay, formerly but seemingly not for much longer, "The Last Place on Earth for the Worst people in the World."
****

What about Sarah Palin? She spoke to Rush Limbaugh [transcript]. Of him I know nothing. Of Sarah Palin I know this:

"So, you know, I’m going out there and I’m just simply speaking. So be it that I’m a simple talker, but I’m just going out there and letting people know the differences and how absolutely paramount it is that voters are paying attention and that voters are understanding candidates’ records, their associations, their plans for the future; instead of being kind of wrapped up into all this rhetoric of Obama’s and buying into it and not holding him accountable for the things that he’s done, the things that he’s said, his associates, and where he wants to take America."

[Post Notes: Graphic from George Romero, Night of the Living Dead. Paraguay quotation from Rolling Stone Magazine. And I fixed up the genius's punctuation so I could read his comment properly.]

Anti-Americanism as Buffonery

Anti-Americanism is a form of mental illness, a manifestation of a personality disorder, and a fashion-statement all in one. What a bargain. If only there were some real money in it the world would be filthy rich. The problem is that the illness makes it nearly impossible to cope in the world. Anti-Americanism is a serious mental disorder and personality disorder that flourishes in weak people. Most of them start life with serious mental and personality disorders, and like the fool who starts out smoking crack "occasionally" and ends up a full-blown addict, so it is with the anti-American who finds his attitude has taken over whatever original mind and personality he might once have possessed, leaving him a shouting, maniacal, fucked-up lunatic. I got curious and looked into a bit of Buffon, and then turned to a review of Jean-Francois Revel, Anti-Americanism.

I've written a number of times here on Buffon, and more often on the origins of anti-Americanism. Here's a bit from wikipedia. I cut out most of it because it's so silly it wasn't worth looking at. I use these posts as resources for further writing, and this piece below is in line with that project. I keep what I hope will be of use. Hope it's of interest to you, too, dear reader, and also the final product, whenever that comes about.

The degeneracy thesis

The Comte de Buffon, a leading French naturalist, developed the "degeneracy thesis" in the mid-eighteenth century. It held that the American landmasses were inferior to Europe and in decline due to atmospheric conditions.

In the mid- to late-eighteenth century, a theory emerged among European intellectuals that the New World landmasses were inherently inferior to Europe. The so-called "degeneracy thesis" held that climatic extremes, humidity and other atmospheric conditions in America physically weakened both men and animals.[27] Two authors, James W. Ceaser and Philippe Roger, have interpreted this theory as a "a kind of prehistory of anti-Americanism." [4][28] Purported evidence for the idea included the smallness of American fauna, dogs that ceased to bark, and venomous plants;[29] one theory put forth was that the New World had emerged from the Biblical flood later than the Old World.[30] Native Americans were also held to be feeble, small, and without ardor.[31]

The theory originated with Comte de Buffon, a leading French naturalist, in his Histoire Naturelle (1766). [31] The French writer Voltaire joined Buffon and others in making the argument. [29] Dutchman Cornelius de Pauw, court philosopher to Frederick II of Prussia became its leading proponent.[4] While Buffon focused on the American biological environment, de Pauw attacked people native to the continent.[30] In 1768, he described America as "degenerate or monstrous" colonies and argued that, "the weakest European could crush them with ease."[32]

The theory was extended to argue that the natural environment of the United States would prevent it from ever producing true culture. Paraphrasing de Pauw, the French Encyclopedist Abbé Raynal wrote, "America has not yet produced a good poet, an able mathematician, one man of genius in a single art or a single science."[33] The theory was debated and rejected by early American thinkers such as Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson; Jefferson, in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1781), provided a detailed rebuttal of de Buffon.[4] Hamilton also vigorously rebuked the idea in Federalist No. 11 (1787).[31] The living examples of Jefferson and Franklin—vigorous geniuses and clearly not degenerate—helped refute the thesis.[30]

Research into the degeneracy idea dates to at least 1944 and the work of Italian historian Antonello Gerbi.[30] One critic, citing Raynal's ideas, suggests that it was specifically extended to the English colonies that would become the United States.[34]

Roger suggests that the idea of degeneracy posited a symbolic, as well as a scientific America, that would evolve beyond the original thesis. He argues that Buffon's ideas formed the root of a "stratification of negative discourses" that has recurred throughout the two countries' relationship (and has been matched by persistent anti-Gallic sentiment in the United States).[28]

Politics and ideology

The young United States also faced criticism on political and ideological grounds. Ceaser argues that the Romantic strain of European thought and literature, hostile to the Enlightenment view of reason and obsessed with history and national character, disdained the rationalistic American project. The German poet Nikolaus Lenau commented: "With the expression Bodenlosigkeit (absence of ground), I think I am able to indicate the general character of all American institutions; what we call Fatherland is here only a property insurance scheme." Ceaser argues in his essay that such comments often repurposed the language of degeneracy, and the prejudice came to focus solely on the United States and not Canada and Mexico. [4]

The nature of American democracy was also questioned. The sentiment was that the country lacked "[a] monarch, aristocracy, strong traditions, official religion, or rigid class system," according to Rubin, and its democracy was attacked by some Europeans in the early nineteenth century as degraded, a travesty, and a failure.[35] The French Revolution, which was loathed by many European conservatives, also implicated the United States and the idea of creating a constitution on abstract and universal principles.[4] That the country was intended to be a bastion of liberty was also seen as fraudulent given that it had been established with slavery.[36] ("How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" asked Samuel Johnson in 1775.[37] He famously stated that, "I am willing to love all mankind, except an American."[35])

With the rise of American industry in the late nineteenth century, intellectual anti-American discourse entered a new form. Mass production, the Taylor system, and the speed of American life and work became a major threat to some intellectuals' view of European life and tradition.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, "The breathless haste with which they (the Americans) work - the distinctive vice of the new world - is already beginning ferociously to infect old Europe and is spreading a spiritual emptiness over the continent."

It has been argued that this thesis transformed into a Heideggerian critique of technologism. Heidegger wrote in 1935: "Europe lies today in a great pincer, squeezed between Russia on the one side and America on the other. From a metaphysical point of view, Russia and America are the same, with the same dreary technological frenzy and the same unrestricted organization of the average man." Oswald Spengler had made similar claims in 1931's Man and Technics and his 1934 bestseller The Hour of Decision. In 1921, the Spaniard Luis Araquistáin wrote a book called El Peligro Yanqui ("The Yankee Peril"), in which he condemned American nationalism, mechanization, anti-socialism ("socialism is a social heresy there") and architecture, finding particular fault with the country's skyscrapers, which he felt diminished individuality and increased anonymity. He called the United States "a colossal child: all appetite..."[38]

As European immigration to the United States continued and the country's economic potential became more obvious, anti-American stances grew a much more explicit geopolitical dimension. A new strand of anti-American sentiment started to appear as America entered the competition for influence in the Pacific, and anti-Americanism was widespread among the Central Powers after the U.S. entered the First World War. Furthermore, many of the anti-American ideological threads spread to other areas, such as Japan and Latin America, where Continental philosophy was popular and growing American power was increasingly viewed as a threat. In political terms, even among the allies of the United States, Britain and France, there was resentment at the end of the war as they found themselves massively in debt to the United States. These sentiments became even more widespread during the interbellum and Great Depression and sometimes tended toward the anti-Semitic: the belief that America was ruled by a Jewish conspiracy was common in countries ruled by fascists before and during World War II.

French author Jean-François Revel wrote that "For skeptics of democratic capitalism, the United States is, quite simply, the enemy. For many years, and still today, a principal function of anti-Americanism has been to discredit the nation that stands as the supreme alternative to socialism. More recently, Islamists, anti-modern Greens, and others have taken to pillorying the U.S. for the same reason."[26]The belief that America was ruled by a Jewish conspiracy or that Israel was an American puppet state has also motivated anti-American hatred in some circles during the last third of the 20th century.

In early 2002, the #1 best seller in France was L'Effroyable imposture, which claimed that 9/11 was a conspiracy orchestrated by the U.S. government[50]. It broke the French record for first-month book sales.[51] In Europe in 2002, vandalism of American companies was reported in Venice, Athens, Berlin, Zürich, Tbilisi, and Moscow.[52]

French anti-americanism predates the founding of the United States with the belief that it was a barbaric land and all who went there also degenerated.[54] A particularly strong source of anti-americanism has been the European Extreme-Right. This has been very visible in the French National Front, for example.[55]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Americanism


In a fit of better judgment I deleted my concluding comments. Feel free below to make any coherent points you care to.

The Beauty of Sewers

When I looked at the Internet this evening I didn't expect to find a story on the theft of manhole covers in Manhattan. Oh, was I wrong. There are roughly 23,000 stories on the theft of manhole covers as of today. Given time there will likely be 23,000 more.
****

My primary concern here is not, as must be thought by most readers, that of fascist Islam and Left dhimmi fascism; my concern is for Human decency and peoples' opportunity to live free of unwarranted oppression, which I see as mostly stemming in our time from the two aforementioned ideologies. Unwarranted oppression isn't simply the fascism of the Left and the Muslim hordes they use as proxies: it is also Romantic reaction, eg philobarbarism and povertarianism. So, on occasion, this being one, I put together a post on public health to show just what our beautiful Modernity gives us and what we will lose if we allow our lives to be ruined by the fascists who claim that cities are alienating, that one should "move back to Nature," that we should be "authentic," and the usual string of pagan Blood and Soil ecologist misanthropy. Imagine life without sewers. No? Then go to a city without them, pick your favorite Third World megalopolis. What does Islam have to offer that's better than sewers? What does the Left offer that's better than clean water? These poisoners of the people's minds are a filthy disgrace. Modernity gives us sewers. I love sewers. In fact, I love them so much that I want a doormat of a sewer cover for my front door.

Here's a bit from the first story to pop up, a bit from wikipedia:

Manhole cover theft is the phenomenon of manhole covers being stolen, usually for resale as scrap. Long considered to be a childish prank in the United States, this type of theft is often expensive to municipalities, and dangerous to their residents.

It first became a serious problem in India and China, where missing manhole covers have caused eight deaths so far. Hundreds of manhole covers are stolen in the city of Bangalore, India every month. In Newham, East London, nearly 200 grates and covers were stolen.

In the city of Calcutta, India more than 10,000 manhole covers were taken in two months. These were replaced with concrete covers, but these were also stolen, this time for the iron rods inside them. The thieves were believed to be buying lottery tickets with the money.

Missing covers and grates may cause disappearances, deaths, and damage to vehicles. According to China's Xinhua news agency, about "240,000 manhole and street-drain covers were stolen in Beijing in 2004."

****

I risked death one afternoon when I got a bedsheet, a role of tape, and a block of black rubbing wax and went onto the street to get a print of a manhole cover in Yaffo, Israel of a "Palestinian Mandate" manhole cover. The original is a lovely piece of work. for more images of manhole covers, click here to see Ruavista's collection of photos.

Ruavista text below.

Manhole covers are among the urban landscape's most lasting features. They are made of extremely durable materials since their placement exposes them to wear. They have also endured because unlike gas street lamps, manhole covers remain useful and, more than 100 years after their installation, continue to fulfil their function perfectly.

Traditional manholes covers are round and decorated with geometric designs. They often bear inscriptions. The round shape requires less space than a square and makes handling easier. Once removed, the cover can be transported by rolling. Decorations serve as identification. In English-speaking countries, manhole covers were embossed and those covering telephone networks bore hexagonal designs. Designs also provide a non-slip surface on the sidewalk or roadway. Manhole covers offer living testimony to the industrial artistry of the second half of the 19th century as many of the covers still seen today on the sidewalks of European and North American cities date from that period. London, capital of the world's first industrialized country, is undoubtedly the most beautiful open-air museum. The variety and beauty of manhole cover designs are unparalleled. Many covers date from the second half of 19th century, when electric, gas and telephone service became available in the city. Subterranean galleries were necessary to install the infrastructure underground and access for maintenance had to be provided.

Drainage work began in 1847 but manhole covers were not installed for several years. Authorities initially rejected the system for fear that they would allow deadly gases to escape. (Before the manhole cover system was adopted, maintenance could only be performed after making holes in the galleries and sealing them when the work was completed.)
****

APPENDIX 2 - THE LETTER OF THE LAW

[....]

2 Following the second major Cholera outbreak, in 1847, the Government was propelled into the introduction of the 'Public Health Act, 1848'. This Act created a General Board of Health (Edwin Chadwick was one of its three members). During its five years existence, the Board was empowered to provide sewerage systems for the water-borne collection of domestic wates. A Medical Officer of Health could also be appointed. Despite the patent need for public health schemes, the vested interests of landowners and others formed a vociferous lobby against the granting of the necessary powers to any public body. When the Board of Health was abolished, the 'Times' concluded that "the English People would prefer to take the chance of Cholera, rather than be bullied into health". The same newspaper called the 1848 Act "a reckless invasion of property and liberty". Even so, the Act was only mandatory in towns where the death rate was greater than 22 per thousand of population or where 10% of ratepayers petitioned for its adoption. After the demise of the Board of Health, the Privy Council was made responsible for public health (1858) and John Simon was appointed as Medical Officer.

http://www.dsellers.demon.co.uk/sewers/sew_ch12.htm
****

A Glimpse Into London's Early Sewers
Reprinted from Cleaner magazine
PART I BY MARY GAYMAN

Sewer means "seaward" in Old English. London's sewers were open ditches sloped
slightly to drain human wastes toward the River Thames, and ultimately into
the sea. Sewer ditches quickly filled with garbage and human wastes, which
overflowed onto streets, into houses and marketplaces throughout London.
By the late 1500s, King Henry VIII wrote an edict which made each
householder responsible for clearing the sewer passing by their dwelling.
The King also created a special Commission of Sewers to enforce these
rules. However, no money was provided to pay its members. Therefore, the
Commission was not installed until 1622, when it was decided that fines for
non-compliance could be used to fund its activities....

By the early 18th Century nearly every residence had a cesspit beneath
the floors. In the best of homes the nauseating stench permeated the most
elegant parlor. Indoor odors were often worse than of the garbage- and manure-
filled streets. While noxious fumes were ignored by most people, it was fear
of "night air" laden with coal smoke and sulfurous industrial fogs which
alarmed the City dweller....

By the early 18th Century nearly every residence had a cesspit beneath
the floors. In the best of homes the nauseating stench permeated the most
elegant parlor. Indoor odors were often worse than of the garbage- and manure-
filled streets....

Doors and windows of homes and factories were sealed shut at sunset to
protect occupants form entry of the feared "night air." Entire families and
crews of workers died of mysterious "asphyxiation" during the night. Doctors
had no explanation for lingering illnesses and these sudden "miasmas"
occurring in the City. Vivid descriptions of horrible deaths were routinely
reported at Commission hearings and in the London tabloids.
Most fatalities and injuries described were consistent with asphyxiation
by hydrogen sulfide or oxygen deficiency or methane explosions.

Draining London's Sewage Swamp

The streets of London lie 30 feet below the surface of the Thames at high tide. The city housed more than two million people in crowded conditions and the situation was deteriorating daily. Epidemics of cholera, typhus, "consumption" and other undefined maladies plagued the City over at least four centuries. Edwin Chadwick, a sanitary reformer of the era, struggled with upper class apathy toward these horrible conditions. Chadwick explored sewers, questioned slum dwellers, and turned out hundreds of reports to the Commission. He experimented with the benefits of obtaining pure water from lakes and reservoirs, rather than the fetid Thames. His Public Health Act ultimately reversed the tide of death. He chastised residents of London for defying the Law of Moses, often pointing out that it "forbade even an open camp be defiled with human ordure, and expressly ordained that it should be deposited at a distance and immediately covered with soil." He attacked the greed of homeowners stating: "Early in the progress of these investigations, the proposed system of cleansing, by removal of the ordure in suspension in waste, was objected to on the grounds of supposed loss of money received for manure." ... Meanwhile, engineers were hard at work devising a system of drainage which would carry the wastes of 2 million people out of the area, in compliance with Mosaic law. Commissioners allowed experimentation with the "soil-pan or watercloset principle" and the "tubular mode of drainage" in cities and hamlets throughout England. Though Sir Thomas Crapper had not perfected his invention, the Commission had received hundreds of less functional designs for its consideration. The "water closet" concept was, as yet, unwieldy. A complete system of "tubular drains" were yet to be constructed to "carry immediately away ass solid or semi-solid matter," as the Commissioned envisioned. In 1858 "The Great Stink," from the backed up Thames, caused thousands to flee the City, while Parliament remained in session. Windows of the parliament building were draped with curtains soaked in chloride of lime, to prevent closing of the Government. Upper class residents fled the city or drenched sheets with perfumes to mask the odor from the outside....
http://www.swopnet.com/engr/londonsewers/londontext1.html
****

Sewers are beautiful. There are those who try to waste my time talking about greenhouse gasses and organic food. Spare me. Talk to me about sewers.