More on the left’s reaction to the Walker victory: never surrender!
Walter Russell Mead reflects on the same topic I talked about yesterday, when I discussed a piece by John Nichols in The Nation and spoke of the left’s reaction to its drubbing in Wisconsin. Mead zeros in on one in the WaPo by Katrina vanden Heuvel, who’s (not coincidentally) the editor and publisher of The Nation.
The Nation is a perfect example of the thinking of the movement that likes to call itself “progressive”—which is the large segment of the left that doesn’t overtly call itself something scary like “socialist” or “communist” but is still quite far out there. The Nation has a long and proud—and paradoxical—history. Founded right after the Civil War by abolitionists, it was for the rest of the 19th century a vehicle for classical liberal thought, which is closer to what we now call conservatism. But in 1900 a new owner (son of the previous one) took a new editorial direction, in fact a 180 turn:
[New owner] Oswald Villard welcomed the New Deal and supported the nationalization of industries ”“ thus reversing the meaning of “liberalism” as the founders of “The Nation” would have understood the term, from a belief in a smaller and more restricted government to a belief in a larger and less restricted government. Villard’s takeover prompted the FBI to monitor the magazine for roughly 50 years. The FBI had a file on Villard from 1915. Villard sold the magazine in 1935. It became a nonprofit in 1943.
Almost every editor of The Nation from Villard’s time to the 1970s was looked at for “subversive” activities and ties.
So it’s no surprise that, as Mead points out, current editor vander Heuvel is taking the long view, and asking her simpatico readers to do likewise. She seems to be aware that the blow landed in Wisconsin was a powerful one, although she voices the oft-repeated remedy—more money (a funny thing for a leftist to empathize, but hey, that filthy lucre’s being used in a good cause, right?).
I have the urge to quote almost all of Mead’s article. Although it’s pretty much what I was writing yesterday, Mead’s an excellent and insightful writer, so he probably says it better than I did (and here I go, quoting the bulk of it):
The left’s analysis of its loss in Wisconsin resorts to some classic tropes: it is despair masked as defiance in order to avoid deep introspection. The rhetoric of resistance is employed to describe the substance of collapse in an effort to insulate conventional pieties and beloved assumptions from withering critiques…
Contemplating the imminent defeat in Wisconsin, [Nation editor vander Heuvel] titled her article “Wisconsin gives progressives something to build on.” She is clear about the nature of the threat:
By attacking labor unions, flooding Wisconsin with outside cash and trying to cleanse the electorate of people who don’t look, earn or think like him, Walker has taken aim at more than a single campaign cycle or a series of policies; his real targets are the pillars of American progressivism itself.
But contemplating the likelihood of defeat, she calls on her allies to take the long view. The very long view. They must contemplate history with the eyes of faith.
Elections are over in a matter of hours, but movements are made of weeks, months and years. The Declaration of Sentiments was issued at Seneca Falls in 1848, yet women did not gain the right to vote until seven decades later. The Civil War ended with a Union victory in 1865, yet the Voting Rights Act was not passed until a century later. Auto workers held the historic Flint sit-down strike in 1936-37, yet the fight for a fair, unionized workforce persists 75 years later.
Victory is inevitable, though perhaps not for another two generations. Build the movement; fight the fight. The message at once consoles the faithful and acknowledges the scale of a historic defeat. When she tries to sound positive about what the long, expensive, draining, bitter, losing fight in Wisconsin accomplished, she waxes eloquent but not, I think, convincing:
Just as the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt motivated people around the world, including in Wisconsin, the occupation of the Madison statehouse helped inspire the occupation of Wall Street a few months later.
This seems at once grandiose and hollow…And the fight in Wisconsin gives us an example, she enthuses:
”¦in the last 15 months, Wisconsin’s progressives have shown us that the battle against bankrolled austerity can be bravely waged by an army of dedicated people committed to protecting working families. They’ve reminded us that good organizing is our only chance to withstand the blitzkrieg of corporate funded advertising ”” and better yet, leave a lasting mark. Their movement, with thousands of new Wisconsin activists mobilized, energized and educated, can be permanent ”” and it can keep growing.
Yes, they can do all that, and they can lose. Big time. They can fail to get their favorite candidate nominated by the Democratic voters, they can fail to move public opinion on the core question of the Walker labor reforms, and they can fail to move the state or the country towards their point of view.
Vanden Heuvel’s analysis of why the left lost in Wisconsin is simple, and if it is true, the left looks doomed. The answer is money, she says, reflecting a very widespread line of analysis. Thanks to the Supreme Court, the right is able to outspend the left ten to one, ensuring that the left can never win.
If the argument is correct, then this really is a “Seneca Falls” movement ”” and the left is doomed to generations of marginalization or, as The Nation would more optimistically put it, “struggle.” If the right can “flood the zone” with dough, the left will never be able to win enough presidential and senatorial contests to reverse the Supreme Court’s trajectory. If the American people are really so stupid and clueless that they docilely follow the big bucks and the deceptive campaign ads of their clever class enemies on the right, then the right is pretty much set for a long spell of power.
The reality is more complicated. For one thing, the left had more money on its side in Wisconsin than many reports acknowledge; $20 million from labor groups, according to this estimate. More importantly, money does matter in politics, but money alone is rarely enough, especially on an issue which voters care deeply about. When the left ”” or the right ”” can summon popular passion and energy to its side, it can not only put up a noble fight. It can win. This actually happens quite a lot in American politics: poorly funded campaigns with charismatic candidates tap into some deep reservoir of popular sentiment and they deal out bitter defeats to the pallid, colorless but well-moneyed Establishment candidates. This has been happening relatively frequently in Republican politics of late. There have been times in American history when it happened also on the left. Milwaukee, Wisconsin has had Socialist mayors.
The left’s problem in Wisconsin wasn’t that the right had too much money. The left’s problem is that the left’s agenda didn’t have enough support from the public. Poll after poll after poll showed that the public didn’t share the left’s estimation of the Walker reforms. Many thought they were a pretty good idea; many others didn’t much like the reforms but didn’t think they were bad enough or important enough to justify a year of turmoil and a recall election.
The left lost this election because it failed to persuade the people that its analysis was correct. The people weren’t a herd of sheep dazzled by big money campaign ads on TV; the Wisconsin electorate chewed over the issues at leisure, debated them extensively, considered both points of view ”” and then handed the left a humiliating, stinging and strategic defeat.
But although I admire Mead tremendously, and obviously agree with a lot of what he says here—since I’d written much the same yesterday, before I’d even read it—I have a caveat. I think he is being too sanguine.
I could sum up my attitude in one sentence: Do not underestimate the seductive power of the left. Not only does the left take the long view, but in the long term it may win (at least for a while, and perhaps even longer) if the right is not eternally vigilant.
There are many ways this could happen. One is demographics. Another is the decline of education; if the left continues to hold the reins of academia they can shape minds, and then those minds go on to shape other minds. Same for media. Another is the slippery slide down the increasing entitlement slope, and the growth of that segment of the population that depends on handouts. Yes, all that can’t go on forever (as Europe and the Soviet Union have both proven, in different ways). But it can still go on for quite some time.
So although I think some joy is definitely in order after Wisconsin, the danger is in the right’s letting down its guard. Rest assured that the left never will.
Neo, you are right about the seductive words the left uses to entrance the young and weak. Who ever thought that in the 21st century we would have frequent riots by Anarchists! Or that OWS would be tolerated as much as it was. The radical has a position as a protected “minority” class today. You are not allowed to question their motives, even though t he leadership sit the same brutal, callous types that filled the Soviet Union.
But take heart, the Kennedys are losing their protective armor and the left will slink back like the last vial of smallpox to a protected bunker for a long while.
More on the left’s reaction to the Walker victory: never surrender!
have you ever thought that the term “never surrender” is what a Trotsky would say given that they believe in perpetual war till there is no more opposition to socialism?
not knowing how to interpret what they are keying to others, is like being a child among adults snickering over a inside joke (which by the way, increases their narcissistic justification from being above and too smart to be so stupid like those they dupe)
so its not just the words your reading, there is even MORE meaning in that stuff if your keyed into it…
Let me see what cute details i can find in the above…
The Nation has a long and proud–and paradoxical–history.
that’s a clue… when that happens that means that the organization has been subverted and part of a internal social battle. and such often goes back to the period in which the state attempted to ferret out such subversion, and the changes again after when we were prevented from “cleaning house” all the way
and its funny you bring up Oswald Villard…
all you have to do is know the history of moses harmon, and the line that went through the wealthy peoples as these people seduced their children and their CHILDREN became the communists working to abolish their own families wealth (yeah right) and make for a world run by committee/soviet (which owns nothing but controls everything as ford said)
and i keep saying when you s tart to unravel the gordian knot rather than muse over it ignoring its contents. you CONSTANTLY see the same things over and over.
as i said, feminisms story is mostly a lie, and if you look up moses harmon and start linking things up… you will find the same cancer or cancers in the cracks that then become the single theme running through every part of it.
which is what ideology does.. suffuses the body politic and drowns out all others… in a body politic that is not homogeneous, those who dont know the language, don’t understand what they are saying behind your back
femnists again…
unlike other political movements, the feminists first decided that marrying the wealthiest men would be a way to control the future. (like what rich man really ignores his wife? especially of that era?)
this is why following the history through lineage is so important (and why they constantly tell you not to pay attention to your family, then you don’t pay attention to THEIRS)
Helen Frances “Fanny” Garrison Villard was a women’s suffrage campaigner and a co-founder of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. She was the daughter of prominent publisher and abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison.
AH… so the femnist front also helped construct the other fronts of each minority group that it would pit against the main to divide and conquer and change society.
[edited for length by n-n]
The unvarnished truth is the left does not accept the will of the people. They don’t believe in elections that don’t support their world view. You want guns? No, you can’t have them. You want a pick up truck or SUV, you can’t have one. You want smaller government and lower taxes? You can’t have them. The left is like Freddie Kruger. They won’t die.
The unions in Wisconsin had a rather significant drop in membership, after the state stopped collecting dues. That seems to be the key here. If the state can stop collecting dues for the unions, workers can choose to continue to belong to the union or to stop funding it. If enough workers stop sending in their dues, the unions will lose power and they will have no one to blame but the union management.
I have the urge to quote almost all of Mead’s article.
control it, thats what gets me…
the fact you find something that almost everyone your going to present it to, will never know any of it… rarefied as it is.
no.. she has no understanding, she is just saying what YOU will think is introspective.
(see song: the hook brings you back)
completely wrong.. and sad you think she is insightful… she isn’t
she is musing and posing as insightful, but why hasn’t she and you asked the question.
why Tropes? how can going back to a trope be despair marked by defiance (and what does THAT mean?)
its the pomo paper writer again..
Dispair: The complete loss or absence of hope.
Defiance: Open resistance; bold disobedience
if my reading comprehension machine was turned off and i was FEELING my way i migh tlike the combination of terms like poetry rather than sophistry and be enamored by the surface appearance.
but when you can tell me how someone who is in despair can be defiant, you might get it.
if they are defiant, they CANT be in dispair. but when your cognitive dissonance bs detector is numb from normalization, what can you expect.
the reason the left uses tropes is that we are too stupid NOT to respond to them. thats why.
the left dont care about meaning or anything, they ONLY care about power. power by valid means, power by lies, power by tricks, power as a gift, etc. without truly grasping what george kennan said and i recommended would get you to ignore that THEY dont care but YOU do.
you keep getting suckerted into the same thing… which is that they are in the moment and experiencing and so they can feel and act…
they arent… which is why tropes. tropes are ritual answers that dont require any content knowlege.
we are conditioned to respond to them as if they are important, full of meaning, and we wont consider them. sociologically we will examine NEW ideas, old ideas we just accept.
to accept what they are saying as valid is to believe that on some level they respect you. your EGO cant grasp the concept of a person who sees you as a cell, a nothing, a thing that is to be used and thrown away… with meaning and respect.
by accepting the bs you negate the truth of the other having no regard or respect for you as a person!!!
her list of things to celebrate are all communist successes and copies of the soviet thing but by other means without the power to force it.
[edited for length by n-n]
About right and left: The right has let down its guard for a very long time, while the left has been continuously at work pulling the country in its direction. The Tea Party movement represents an awakening, wonderfully encouraging, but the real challenge is staying awake. The left’s gift is its pose of compassion and justice while the right typically has accepted the scraps: the image of the stern, misunderstanding parent who can only say No, plus the left’s framing of the social/political argument.
Conservatism has the greatest challenge, that of educating and promoting insight, while all the left must do to sustain itself and grow is to persuade people to reach out and take what they are anyway entitled to. Conservatism is doing a lot of teaching, right now, but it has to be a permanent effort.
Artfldgr: I respectfully offer that you need to slow down in your reading of my posts. You are misunderstanding them more and more often. And I think it may be because you read and write so fast.
If you take another look, you will see that I was speaking of Mead, not of vander Heuvel, when I said “insightful” (although I think his article has some flaws, he’s generally insightful). And the other quote (about introspection) is from Mead, and he is saying that vander Heuvel avoids introspection. So your comment above is not addressed to what I was saying, but to what you misunderstood me to be saying.
I do not think vander Heuvel is leveling with the reader. And I am well aware of the left’s drive for power and contempt for people who would get in its way. Who could read history without realizing that?
“Do not underestimate the seductive power of the left”
Nor the reductive power of the Left. Nor the coercive power of the Left.
If we have not yet been successfully balkanized we have certainly been successfully set up for it. Every new immigrant wave is progressively more peculiar and centuries removed from either understanding or acknowledging the concept of the social contract. Personally, when I hear “My fellow Americans” I now think it nothing more than a quaint curtsy to tradition.
The reductive and coercive powers of the Left are manifest everywhere. If not yet lives then certainly livelihoods are at risk — ask, for example, Larry Summers. His statement about women in science and engineering degree programs was reduced to sexism and he was coerced first into public contrition, then self-ousted. Any statement, from arguable to obvious, is up for reductivist scrutiny and anyone who utters it is up for getting set down on his knees. We haven’t to wait for new world order – it is upon us. The rules are the same on paper but are now interpreted by the elect. The elect run the show, the rest of us operate ‘by-your-leave’.
One last thing, it is informative but even more instructive; the recall race and accompanying frothy rage in Wisconsin was as a result of Gov. Walkers having, in essence, tweaked the law. What, I wonder, would he have been in for had he made the point that public service employees have no cause to be represented by unions — with the exception of police and firemen (danger and safety considerations).
vanden Heuvel: Walker is “trying to cleanse the electorate of people who don’t look, earn or think like him”
They just can’t and won’t stop saying this stuff. It makes them look both nasty and dumb in the eyes of reasonable people. Though if the latter are the minority they sometimes seem, it won’t matter.
The problem is that for the progressives their politics are their faith. They practice their faith like crazed Muslims, attempting to convert or kill everyone who doesn’t have the faith. Their G_d is an egalitarian Gaia and MUST be worshipped – daily, hourly, minutely. Reason and debate are not allowed in their faith – only hard-core belief and striving.
The problem for conservatives is that we want to live our lives as individuals with as little interference as possible from government. Our religious faith, if we have any, is kept separate from politics and is generally quite tolerant. It takes a lot to rouse conservatives to rally around our political cause because we are usually busy doing things we enjoy much more, like having lives.
That’s why liberty and small government will always be endangered. At least until conservatives become intolerant of progressive nostrums and manage to convert (or kill?) most of them to our side. I don’t see that happening anytime soon. So, the struggle will continue. Wisconsin was a small victory. A Republican President and Congress in November would be a much bigger win. But the struggle will go on because they will not quit and we must not quit.
You said that right, JJ.
Oh, and about “them:” Bless their hearts.
The US isn’t far away from a run in with its entitlement programs. Such a run in would likely shut down any leftward shift in this country.
The left’s past succeses will limit any near future success the left has.
On a sort of related note, is the following by Stuart Schneiderman, a man of extraordinary common sense despite being a psychiatrist. And he says it so nicely that it’s really wisdom.
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/
Are the illiberals Candide optimistic? No, I don’t think so. They are Candide idealogues.
JJ formerly JJ wrote,
“The problem for conservatives is that we want to live our lives as individuals with as little interference as possible from government. Our religious faith, if we have any, is kept separate from politics and is generally quite tolerant. It takes a lot to rouse conservatives to rally around our political cause because we are usually busy doing things we enjoy much more, like having lives.
That’s why liberty and small government will always be endangered…. the struggle will continue. Wisconsin was a small victory. A Republican President and Congress in November would be a much bigger win. But the struggle will go on because they will not quit and we must not quit.”
That nonreciprocal structuring of the dynamic, that lack of an operating parallelism between the contending parties, is an important point that until fairly recently was overlooked too often. Never unknown, not ever forgotten, but not kept as relentlessly in the spotlight.
Progressives are not people who want the same things as conservatives do, but who just wish to go about it in some other way. It is clearly not as if the disputes between classical and modern liberals are akin to a disagreement over building a truss versus a suspension bridge, or arguing over whether to fund it publicly or privately, or with a bond issue or a tax.
The progressive is, in principle and social aim, about the displacement of that which the conservative or libertarian judges makes life worth living and imbues actions with moral meaning.
In order for the progressive to have what he wants there must be in principle no limits to what claims he may lay against other men, or what shaping activities he may undertake in fashioning the population under his domination.
A simple argument with a progressive over the notion of constitutionalism, which is in essence the idea of recognizing absolute moral limits in governance and compulsion, will in short order reveal that the progressive recognizes nothing of the kind: no decent boundaries to his interests, no limits to his sway, no point of theoretical satiety.
For the progressive, inherent rights are nothing more than discredited metaphysical mumbo-jumbo; at best a useful bit of rhetoric to be deployed in certain circumstances, but never to be taken seriously, much less literally.
The grass might as well plead with a cow to be reasonable in its appetite, as a conservative try and persuade a progressive to relent or focus elsewhere.
The progressive cannot.
It’s human material they seek out in order to satisfy their wants. It’s their, I am increasingly and unhappily persuaded, “evolutionary strategy”.
Why farm the land when you can farm other men?
The dignity of autonomy, of not being a parasite.
What is civilization?
It is the transfer of vengeance to a third party.
This is the best single dialogue this site has seen in some time. The Leftist termites have been incrementally destroying this country for a century, and the tipping point is close , very close. Conservative America must take the Wilson/ Alinsky/FDR/LBJ lessons to heart and must become just as enduring and relentless in our pursuit of the Constitutional State. That will not lower our morality and remnant good culture. The bullet does not know who pulled the trigger; it is the shooter who shoots for good or ill.
Dying Jim Valvano said it best: “Never, never, never give up.” That must be our clarion cry, our motto–it has already been de facto adopted by the often illegal Left.
All these comments are excellent. I would like to encourage you all not to be exasperated by the task at hand. My husband & I are baby boomers who came to our conservatism some what like Neo. We were born into Dem households & our folks gave us stories about FDR & we experienced LBJ & that great society business, in fact my unemployed (at the time) mom went to classes (civics lessons really) Mon thru Fri & got a check for going. She thought that was the greatest thing & they did afterward find an actual job for her ! But as we went along in life Regan & his philosophy made more & more sense to us because the libs & dems never seemed to solve the “problems” they were constantly telling us needed to be addressed when we voted them into office. Then we woke up to the fact that the “problems” are just a vehicle to keep them in power & our rights were being eroded, our money practically confiscated via taxes & the US was becoming far removed from what the Founders intended!
So what I am saying is that we can expect converts. More people will join this side of the fray. And the great story of our offspring, our 30 something daughter a liberal up until lately now wears (proudly ) a tin foil hat & convinced her MA liberal husband to NOT vote Obama. Of course I have a 29 yr son who is still in “their” clutches but he is demanding that I not debate him about the issues which tells me that on some level I am resonating with him. Lastly there is a 23 yr old who true to form seems to feel Obama is so cool but he dosen t vote & really has no interest in registering.
A related point that has interested me about the Left’s temper tantrum (a more accurate descriptor than “reaction”):
The Left tells us that Gov. Walker’s intent was not to repair the Wisconsin budget but to obtain an unfair political advantage over “Progressives” in that by “destroying collective bargaining” he was really depriving his opponents of access to funds intended to be used for political purposes. If the Left truly believes this, then aren’t they admitting a few things that one would think they should be loathe to admit, such as (1) the only reason some people support them financially is because they are compelled to do so by being forced to contribute to political activities they do not support; (2) some significant percentage of the people purportedly represented by unions do not deem them to be useful enough to maintain their membership; (3) the Left apparently believes its political activities should be funded by taxpayer dollars, while the Right is not entitled to similar largess; (4) absent compulsion, the Left is not able to compete with the Right on an equal footing; (5) the purpose of government employment is not to serve the people but to enrich the government employee; (6) the Left apparently believes that once it has enacted one of its ideas, no subsequently elected politician can ever change it; (7) democracy is fine, until the people make a decision the Left doesn’t like; and (8) in light of all of the above, the Left is not “progressive,” but, instead, is deeply conservative, elitist, totalitarian and fundamentally undemocratic.
pt 1
I guess thats one way to look at it, but it assumes that the person or persons in question are whole, and choose being parasites.
i used to kind of hold that view, then i realized that perhaps they were incomplete, as all parasites are. that pernicious narcissism in the culture and normalizing its responses over better ones, stunting growth slowing movement to adult thinking and awareness of others, and all that.. were ways to make incomplete people. even vocational education over full education (or rather without full education accompanying it), stunted them too.
and this makes the dual edges that bring someone TO leftism and why so many when they get older, move away from it.
not because the young care more than the old, but because the young are willing to waste precious life on stuff that doesnt work under belief it will, while older people who have learned more about the world tend not to want to waste precious life spinning wheels and have learned to be more effective.
take Molly NH’s comment as to that they changed from a childhood system to an adult system where they grew up enough to see, swallow pride (if that at all was there), and do whats right.
as i said… no one changes.
what changes is that there is no more filter that prevents the lies and manipulations from being seen and once the cracks are seen and the people WANT to be effective, and don’t have their whole lives invested directly in it.
they seem to change.
the same ideals which we mostly share, are whats being played… if you take 10 people who all share the same positive ideals of living life as they want and not bothering anyone much and they not being bothered and all that…
you can divide the group based on who has the ability to reason a chain of thinking that would result in a end that was functional, met the goal, etc.
the ones who do not have that ability and werent taught it, or were given a crippled form of it due to ideology… have to BELIEVE in the end result by trusting someone. while the people who CAN reason to what happens, can make a clearer choice.
again, Molly NH gives the perfect example. once she decided to think and compare inputs and outcomes, and that wasn’t working, the idea of believing in them goes away. it cant come back. ergo the left and the culture games always focusing on the superiority of the young because of the vanity of the young. same with women, over men (not to mention their desire to be ‘safer’).
this all has to do with manipulating our social realm and points to create these incomplete people who then NEED another to be complete.
normally, we would marry our complimentary other, and so have a sense of that completeness… but we all know who has sworn the destruction of such and are in the power place. the same people who want what the leaders they support are destroying.
a human parasite is an incomplete person. we are all somewhat incomplete because we exist in a dimorphic population.
but when you take away the natural things we create around us to be complete – or make them meaningless, then we lose those things that allow us to stand apart from others and seek to become complete and have purpose in letting a collective fill those empty parts.
church, family, natural culture (biologically complimentary and reinforcing when positive), mates, etc… and dont forget a common history and reality based in truth, not lies and shadow perspectives, would give us a common base of truths to work off of and common premises…
it takes a long time for someone who is not taught at all how the world works as they will only be a cog, not a person, like the elite are persons and dont get dumbed down education because they are allowed choice outside of the states desire to edumacate…
to realize that the principals from which they are operating from that they were given, do not work (And that’s if they ever figure it out – or if their underdeveloped superegos, or over developed egos let them)
but thats my take on it… and all valid perspectives summed together are what makes something fully known. not one best perspective… its just we have to weed out the invalid perspectives, the things that pretend to make something into something else.
i will toss this one out as an example few see, notice or get.
why TOLERANCE? why be tolerant? what does it mean in its depth, over say another word?
its a very clever game…
if your told to tolerate balloons, what they are doing is telling you to hate balloons, and sublimate or control that hate in the presence of that.
if you were indifferent to baloons, you could ignore them and not hate them as a precondition to sacrificing self and being a mini martyr for “tolerating”.
said this way, it appeals to VANITY…
the same kind of thing that if magnified leads to stuff like Munchhausen by proxy… and a kind of martyrdom syndrom, where the person who is more sensitive to the world and the problems and its lack of perfection (in their eyes as if they were a great god critiquing the work of another great god in the academic world of great god college), get to be more and more tolerant and martyred inside.
is it any wonder that this then results in the most tolerant being the most intolerant? and why is that so?
because as i said above… we are all mostly the same, and our social cultural ability to tolerate whats bad has boundaries..
filled in a world in which culture contradicts nature, letting it all hang out clashes with tolerating it all.. they cant become oppressor and OPENLY work to remove such things. so they pretend to tolerate every perversion, while in the background support every form of suppression, under the idea of greater good, which again, puts them in this self righteous martyred saint who cant hack being a saint.
in essence, they used women who are the valve on propriety to think progress was something it wasnt, and so created this false idea that ANY restriction was oppression.
then they created a second set of rule making called PC… ie. the left will rewrite the cultural contract and rather than oppress, will then change the things that oppress.
but alas, they are finding out that the freedoms that go beyond the swinging of ones arm and someone else nose, are not oppression, but the social order, and what we do.
note that along with this they also removed the publics right to declare what they dont like in self organizing common focus and similarity, and said, you can ONLY hate who we tell you to hate… the scapegoats.
and what and who are the scape goats (this time), then becomes the question..
Chris Rock knows. Unlike others he is willing to think what is not openly pc to think. because he is a volk, he can sit and describe the scape goats in negative terms and terms ideologically contradictory.. (like whether your a blank slate or born a certain way. and the superior have blank slates to be what someone else decides, and the inferior are born that way and have to go).
Chris Rock: ‘We Ignore the President’s Whiteness, But It’s There’.
so this is why Chris can blame the outcome of Obama’s actions on his white half, as if its the evil half that overcame the pure black half Volks purity.
Final
Just as a German could blame bad outcomes on half jews and concieve that perhaps racial purity is better.
since such has been normalized, its ok for the Volk to disparage the scape goats.
so now the incomplete parasites are turning all the parasites to one victim or set of victims as a proxy for the damage they cause, and a place to vent anger. its already resulted in a below replacement birth rate for decades (genocide), and has normalized the idea that they are born racists… And so you wont get rid of racism till the racists exterminate those who they think are racists.
so indifferent is what would be valid if the goal was to remove something… not tolerant..
The scapegoat has to be sacrificed for a return to purity… which is why the jews in germany chose that word in reference to themselves as being the culture target which the side being paid off and returning obesience gets to vent without punishment (or less punishment) against them for doing so.
Prominent American psychiatrist M. Scott Peck on the other hand, describes evil as “militant ignorance”
as i said… its ignorance… not craziness, stupidity, etc.. ignorance.
and one way to make someone ignorant is to give them false facts, then they are ignorant of the truth… no? it becomes easy to use things like disparate impact arguments which the ignorant think are valid, to foment hatred hot enough to call for murder on twitter as it called for murder in Germany, because good people who developed through ages of starvation, have biologically conserved killing the person who takes more than their share in hard times from the common well. (and it used to respect extra production in merit aside from the common well)
So the racists in our society today, are trying to assuage their guilt for being racists by attacking the one race that is not allowed to defend itself, as if the whole of the white race is to blame for Hitler, and we ignore that it was all of them that stopped him.
the left created the scapegoat of males using feminists… till all men are rapists… and we TOLERATED That… ie. we hated it, but learned to put up with it… every time they came up with something heinous, we tolerated it.
the left through the race games and even murdering and lynching and blowing up blacks, to create a false greater racists image of the south as a whole, rather than selected people with vested interest that were the backers of parties (specifically theirs).
so attacking the SAME designated scape goats, whose numbers are too large, and who vote out slavery, and who invented constitutional republic negating the power of kings, and who created the modern worlds toys, and so on and so on… to destroy the west became the solution they wrote about, planned about, made policy over, and in each point convinced each set of dupes that what they were doing were something else.
and since they were parasites, incomplete, they had to worship those they believe in.
so the women designated their majority mates as evil scapegoats. (which is why 3 times the people cant have half the number of children of the non scapegoats)
the minorities were told to designate the same majority target…
the financial concerned people were also to target the same group… as well as schools, and SBA, and so on.
Does that sound like left leaders and followers who deny morals, want you to focus on the lie of intent, ignore the outcome, tell you what to think, are violent if you try to reveal their game, and so on..
the evil need an army of ignorants who believe… evil as a thing with nature, as described in so much philosophical detail in the western civ cannon, had to be removed from the common mind of the culture so as to allow the desease to progress.
ie. those things that become poltically correct to do, are our cultural immune system.
in this way, with our immune system unable to detect this foreign body that lies to the system to parasite off of it. and unable to eject it, as our defense system is negated from acting too.
in this way, we ALL realize that these are PARASITES, and they are much like malaria.
the real symbol of the Fabians should NOT be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a wolf is a whole complete being, not a parasite. putting a sheeps clothing on it turns a whole creature into a parasite that masquerades to get closer to its VICTIM.
even when they symbolize themselves their ego cant get them to represent themselves accurately…
do you know why, outside of people, there are no wolves in sheeps clothing? because a wolf is not a parasite, its a predator. it doesnt misrepresent itself… it openly works by merit and action… so this is what and how they want to see themselves…
not like this
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/010/cache/malaria-parasites_1059_600x450.jpg
to look at the image above is to see what they really are… misformed parasites among whole blood cells. ugly inside and out, and having to change the rules, to negate the immune system of the society.
ergo.. they are induced cancer of the body politic for the purpose of killing the patient.
and as with all parasites, they cant see beyond and note that when the patient dies, the cancer does not get transferred into the reconstituted place… (though this does not imply that the new thing isn’t cancer ridden, its just not the same cells)
if men are providers (not traditionally which makes it a cultural thing like high heel shoes not a thing that creates greater ability and so greater fecundity over doing it alone), and women are recipients of such, the attachment is one of SYMBIOSIS…
whats the difference between a parasite called a symbiont and a plain old parasite?
reciprocation and mutual benefit..
so it was very easy for the feminists and the left to change symbionts into parasites by getting them to hate their hosts so that mutual benefit suffers… no?
and since the system is symbionts not parasites, what it did was declare that a symbiont is better withotu its complementary other, and is better without comparative advantage that creates the symbiosis…
man leans on woman, as woman leans on man… man cant give man what man needs as a symbiont, and woman cant give woman what she needs as a symbiont. they can have PARTS. but never a whole. as they are incomplete in the same ways.
thats my take…
🙂
1. Progressives believe in Progress (which I capitalized because that’s the way they think).
2. Progress is the inevitable result of the Force of History (see above parenthetical comment).
3. The Force of History cannot be defeated.
4. Therefore, progressives cannot be defeated.
5. Therefore, they weren’t really defeated. You just think they were because you don’t understand the Force of History.
“Wisconsin gives progressives something to build on.”
The ash heap of history?
Elections are over in a matter of hours, but movements are made of weeks, months and years. The Declaration of Sentiments was issued at Seneca Falls in 1848, yet women did not gain the right to vote until seven decades later. The Civil War ended with a Union victory in 1865, yet the Voting Rights Act was not passed until a century later. Auto workers held the historic Flint sit-down strike in 1936-37, yet the fight for a fair, unionized workforce persists 75 years later.
And the Bolsheviks stormed the Winter Palace in 1917 to establish the first Communist state. How they doin’ now?
Let’s face it, The Nation and all its associated hangers-on are straight-up thinly disguised Reds.
Rich, that post is a very good synopsis of “them” actually though its just “their” theory……
Who says “progressivism is inevitable” Progressives do !!!!
I choose to believe “Freedom” is inevitable !
We need to claw back the freedoms that have been unfairly usurped. The Constitution restrains the government against the people. A telling comment of Obama’s is that : “the constitution is so full of NEGATIVE rights” !!!!
Huh ????? This guy is a supposedly a “Constitutional expert” !
( I guess he studies How to Eliminate the Constitution)
A Progressive as well, Hillary trots the globe trying to embroil the US in Treaties that will remove our Freedoms & rights. (There is one
treaty that outlaws small arms) It would eliminate the 2 nd amendment in the US. Not with standing I can see where *the only country where it would be enforced would be the US* Disarm us. Another strategy they kick around is Guns will be legal BUT they will outlaw ammo !!! Always thinking outside the box, those guys.
After all wasn t hillary so so so supportive of the Arab Spring it seems those people all had small arms & big arms too .
Good points Occam, yes & sadly the Progressives are Reds.
They are following that George Soros game plan
eliminate the traditional family as a corner stone of society
marginalize all religions to the fringe of society
negate the *rights in the US Constitution*
Throw some “bones” to the masses: Healthcare with great emphasis on contraception & Abortion mandatory pre natal screening to eliminate defectives, (cost effective to eliminate
potential health care users) Will euthanasia be far behind, I think not !
Legalize drugs & pot, a way to suppress the masses. their perverse reasoning, have a portion of the populace zoned out. The pot users will quell the rest of the citizenry that want their “rights” back.
less push back from the citizenry
During the *cold* war the citizens in Eastern Europe were routinely *suppressed* by being forced to stand in long lines for up to 6, 7, or 8 hours for bread. Meat might only be available in the market on Mon & Thurs so there was even longer more agitated lines on those days. There was no shortage of these staples in eastern europe, my lord, Russia’s Ukraine was the bread basket or Europe, Poland has large tracts of fertile farm land. It was just a gov ploy to squelch dissent, people struggling to get staples have no energy left for politics.
Did *we* ever hear this in the MSM in the US ? Red countries were treated like they did not exist.
DNW writes concerning the progressive’s life strategy,
“Why farm the land when you can farm other men?”
Curtis, grinning, drops the line,
“The dignity of autonomy, of not being a parasite.”
… knowing full well that the chorus will rejoin:
“They are beyond both freedom and dignity”
DNW your comments speak to the facts of what we all need to see
What religion teaches us : we all have dignity because we
are all created in the Image of God. A few simple words but
such an awesome concept. Its actually exhilarating, what can we
not accomplish !!! Being made in His/or Her Image. Just one step below the creator of the universe. No wonder there is so much richness & beauty in our world from the hand of humankind
and Freedom, free will of course another gift of the Creator.
The angels were given it, so were we. when we stand before
God in judgement I imagine God will ask me , what did you do
when you were created in my image, what did you do to manifest your dignity ? Did you see it & respect it in your fellow human being ? You had the freedom to do good or evil
What did you choose?
Actually the bolsheviks are doing fine, the mensheviks are bothering them, the kids are in Nashi, the state is using skin heads to beat up opposition, and the people are not living as well as they could under all that.
Did i mention that Putin collects Breguet watches?
http://www.breguet.com/en/
also
how modest. eh?
Bolsheviks doin ok… no?
I forgot to mention that Putin beats the current top dog, the king of Thailand… who has only 30 billion.
Followed by Sultan of Brunei, King of Saudi Arabia,President of the United Arab Emirates,Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates Emir Sheikh of Dubai,Prince of Liechtenstein,King of Morocco,President of Chile,Prime Minister of Lebanon,President of Pakistan.. and a few more billionaires… Obama is down near the bottom with only 10 million.
the former heads of state list is even more interesting with indonesias suharto coming in at number 3 with 15 billion.
aint feudal states grand? and you know, they really dont like that someone in America can just wake up one day, get lucky, connect the dots with hard work, and make enough to be sitting next to them. after their families slaved so hard with slaves to achieve less in many generations. the only solution is to make sure only the few are rich, and the rest are like those other countries… no?
anyone want a world tax? or maybe a financial transaction tax?
The combat is fun, and is one of the year’s best games, and maybe even forgive me.
Oh, and a great addition to the game assassin’s creed 4 keygen has this stickiness, to everything.
So if you’re new to the game, but at the top of this holiday season.