It used to be…
…that Democrats thought Republicans were evil and Republicans thought Democrats were stupid. Remember the old saying?
But on the comments thread from the Hillary mendacity post, beginning around here, it’s clear that at least some people have now graduated to the idea that Democrats are both evil and stupid. Or maybe they always felt that way.
If you want to follow the discussion, go to the link and start reading as you scroll down. I won’t recap it or refight the battle here, but I’m going to reflect on it. It’s a very bad sign of the times. The right has become desperate, and correctly so. But the demonizing of rank and file Democrats is a very ominous development. Having been one of those Democrats for many many years, living among them and loving them, I feel I know to a great extent the way a lot of liberals think.
I even know what some leftists think, because I’ve lived among them, too (that’s discussed at some length in the mendacity thread, as well). In my mind there’s a big distinction, which I summed up in that thread with the generalization, “the liberals are the pawns, the leftists are the chess players.”
I want to add here that the impulse to label all liberals as evil is the same impulse that—when on the other side—led to or at the very least facilitated the Cultural Revolution in China, the killing fields in Cambodia, the WWII Holocaust (for example, one of the ways the Nazis trained their own baby killers to get over their reluctance to kill infants was by explaining that Jewish babies would grow up to be socialists), and on a smaller scale people such as Anders Breivik.
If you don’t believe me, I’ll add that recently, in the comments section here, a regular commenter wrote “Anders Breivik was right.” That gave me serious pause, and it wasn’t the first time I’d read such sentiments here. Ordinarily, if it had come from a newcomer, I would have erased the comment and banned the writer. But coming from a regular commenter who’s been writing here a long time, I decided to merely erase it and then issue a warning if it happens again.
But, duly noted. The impulse is there, and it leads to something evil.
it’s clear that at least some people have now graduated to the idea that Democrats are both evil and stupid.
For people like me that have seen the unreconstructed history of the Democrat hand before Civil War I, during Civil War I, after Civil War I, during Reconstruction, during Jim Crow, and during Johnson’s targeting of black families via the Welfare Regime, it is difficult to ignore their responsibility for evil.
Stupid is an IQ reference and a relative one, it is grayish, whereas evil is clearly defined and is at least possible to clearly define.
But I don’t have to say or lift a finger, since people will have to face the reality sooner or later. Even if they refuse to believe me, the power of hate and other strong emotions, whether Leftist instigated or not, will command people’s attention. Whether they like it or not.
After they see the true misery brought on by the Leftist alliance, it will be difficult for most normal human beings to reject the new position, one that brings them closer to people like me than the moderates.
It’s not a political thing either. One didn’t need politics to affect the pro abortion crowd, via the undercover videos, after all. Nor was the same the case for ACORN. The IRS… well, there were no undercover videos for the IRS, convenient that.
I feel I know to a great extent the way a lot of liberals think.
Many people continue to attempt to explain this topic or re–explain it, but the point I wanted to make is that this isn’t necessary. This isn’t the point nor the issue.
We are not the thought police, we do not care what Leftists think about X, Y, or Z. We, if there is a we technically speaking, care only about the behavior, the behavior of evil, the behavior that justifies, rationalizes, promotes, supports, and creates evil. That is a behavior, not a thought. If the thinking of moderate Leftists are part of the issue, it is only because the Leftists obey their orders and moderate or fanatic, they adhere to a single unified hierarchy, irregardless of their intent or ignorance (lack there of).
If one could use arguments and debate tricks to “change the behavior” of Leftists, that would be one thing. Changing their mind wasn’t necessary, it was only necessary if people thought they could “win a debate”. But of course, they didn’t realize who they were debating with.
As for Anders, he is Norway’s, was it Norway… perhaps, Oklahoma bomber, except he had a slightly better idea of who his targets were. McVeigh, if people recall, was trying to bring American awareness to the massacre at Waco 1, and because people ignored that and various other things, he became disillusioned and believed only terrorist level force would convince people. I think tactically and strategically they might have, should have read Unintended Consequences first, and McVeigh later said he would have done things differently after reading that book. When I speak of war, I am not speaking of the “war” waged by so called “keyboard warriors” online during the Iraq conflict under Bush II.
Civil War II is or will be, a real war, on the home front, where people can’t just go to the mall and decide to buy vanilla over chocolate. Cause the mall will be booby trapped by 1000+1 factions in the civil conflict.
As for why this had to be or who caused this… well, the Leftist alliance and all the pacifists caused it. People who make themselves weak thinking the aggressive barbarians will go out, just incites the barbarians to come invade and take our stuff.
The Democrat South in 1830 considered the Northern abolitionists a bunch of Quaking, shaking, property stealing, weaklings. It was easy for them to think that once a war started, if the North had the guts to fire back, it would end pretty quickly in favor of the “strong Southern boys”.
Over confidence has led more than one army and nation to their doom, however.
Maybe if the slave owners and white workers had realized how inferior their culture was due to the shackles of slavery (Northern industrialization is only possible because serfdom and slavery were eliminated, you can’t have city workers in a factory if most of the males are kept shackled to fiefdoms and plantations).
Which brings us to the point of telling the truth to the Left’s face, no matter how disturbing or unpleasant that becomes. If somebody doesn’t tell them that they are lying to themselves, they will later say that somebody else started the war of X Aggression. And it’ll embolden them to advance more and take more territory, making Total War more likely. Sherman didn’t even practice Total War btw, since most of the Southern plantation dynasties survived in tact, albeit without their plantations. Total War is more closer to Genghis Khan and the Communist take over of Vietnam or other Eastern European countries.
” The impulse is there, and it leads to something evil.”
Yes it is. And yes it will. And it will happen like the law of gravity. Bemoaning it or warning of it will not alter the arrival.
“nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.”
Sad but true and now unstoppable. It will, in the end, as it always does, come to guns.
The best you can hope for is to put it off as long as possible.
After the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia the Whites and the Reds slaughtered each other for years.
But the Reds don’t always win.
“Democrats thought Republicans were evil and Republicans thought Democrats were stupid.”
The fact that leftists labeled conservatives evil first is exactly why I call the left evil. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who calls innocent people racists because they disagree with them is evil whether he/she is a hard core left or just a”liberal” (in Neo’s words). To make a false accusation against someone else, especially an accusation using such strong injurious language is inexcusable and anyone who makes those false accusations are evil – period.
Civil war is far more common than we’d like to remember.
Following Eric’s admonition, I’ve been key board disruptive, busting up some Leftist Group Think with facts and links.
URLs are just wicked.
I have infuriated some folks.
I called out foreigners for meddling in American political discourse — folks whose opinions are entirely due to the MSM — Canadians, Australians, Brits — even a Kiwi.
That dried up half the chatter. (!)
That forum is not burdened with historical knowledge — just flap jaws.
One can not break the spell of the many — just the few.
The worst offenders are flaming True Believers. (Eric Hoffer)
Yes, it’s a thankless task.
But, like bonsai, you have to start small.
I reason that one must deflate the faith of True Believers with a hundred pin pricks.
I also have to believe — based upon the occasional post — that many read that forum — and never post.
It is largely for them that I post.
I realize that a doctrinaire True Believer’s sole purpose is as a foil to rationality.
I have to hope that I’m reaching past the ding bats to inform younger minds.
For, it’s scarcely believable how much Wiki and the MSM warp reality — history — our legacy.
&&&
It was even here I had to bring up that the Cuban Missile Crisis was really over Cruise Missiles.
I well remember all the talking-heads sweating the risk of a no-notice first strike — by cruise missiles — that had flown up the East Coast — to pivot west at last — zipping into New York, Washington, and more.
Yet, today’s popular recollection is that the danger was from IRBMs.
Those IRBMs were the ONLY missiles that were distinctive and HAD to be shipped atop cargo holds — due to their length.
Sending them was either a mistake — or a deliberate gambit by Moscow.
&&&
Even now, I’m sick of MSM BS about Clinton’s e-mails.
For the current narrative is that the Republicans exposed this dirty linen.
THE FACT: Clinton’s e-mails were discovered by a Romanian college age hacker — who was following the bread crumbs left by Sidney Blumenthal.
This was in the open press when her account first came to light.
No longer !
” ‘the liberals are the pawns, the leftists are the chess players.’ ”
I offer that this is an important distinction. I have long thought that the classic liberal plays an important role in society; IMO they act as a nation’s conscience.
Just as a conscience, the job of such classic liberals is to remind us of the ideals by which we choose to live. Ideals are not only individually inspired (thus not group-think) but they are also a utopian goal toward which we strive. Ideals, like socialism, cannot exist on their own nor can they be created by legislated dicta issued from on high.
Since ideals inspire but do not manage, that social conscience should always be there to temper government but should never govern outright.
“the demonizing of rank and file Democrats is a very ominous development.”
True. Leaving aside the pigeonholes – liberal, progressive, Leftist — still leaves the middle class, for the most part white, that routinely vote Democratic. It’s this contingent, I believe, that Trump is after, while too many GOP/Cons chase after minorities.
When Reagan coopted middle class blue-collar democrats for a landslide victory he was not chasing the after the rainbow. He certainly wasn’t above such nonsense as when he uttered: “Latinos are Republicans. They just don’t know it yet.” And the forthcoming amnesty was yet another American debacle. But that’s another story.
Liberals, on the other hand, pose a quandary. If they are not evil, their defense has become more than a little problematic. At what point, in the certainty of their innocence, does the defense throw up their arms and plead insanity on their behalf? If the good liberal thinks, like the good German hoped, like the good Norwegian expected, that willful insouciance would mitigate haphazard associations with evil, then his thinking is historically faulty. Breivik foreswore making the effort to distinguish differences. He was not the first. The Citizens also foreswore the effort and delivered to the guillotine tumbrils full of servants, maids, cooks, bakers, and a long list of those who should have known better. One need not like it. One may rail against it. But historical determinism has a mind all its own and will act upon it.
11th Commandment: Thou shalt not covet thy Progressive neighbor’s psychoses.
12th Commandment: Thou shalt not keep villainous company.
Following Eric’s admonition, I’ve been key board disruptive, busting up some Leftist Group Think with facts and links.
Anything that gums up the Left’s advance across all fronts of humanity, is useful.
I don’t think that until they really got backed into a corner by the no-limits totalitarian style push of the left on life-ways issues, that average conservatives had reason to be convinced that liberals were either evil, or existentially hostile.
Certainly older conservatives, even now, continue to see liberals as misguided same-types, rather than hostile other-types.
But, with a baby boomer generation which saw the left in action up close and personal in the 1960s and 70’s, and with a conservative generation which has actually read the history of the progressive political machinations of the same era, while delving deeply into the “moral philosophy” of the left, as described by leftists themselves, there is not much room for comforting illusions anymore.
What happens is that the suspicions and incredulity of older conservatives in the face of liberal politics, have been transformed into facts through life experience, and historical and philosophical research.
When the liberals of the present era say that they will realize the social re-ordering dreams they dream (an admission of moral relativism and subjectivity) “by any means necessary”, conservatives and libertarians no longer take it as overwrought rhetoric.
Neo, you admit that you cannot talk about these issues, or even the issues of the day with your liberal friends because the the resultant fallout and hostility – the marginalizing and estrangement – would be so devastating to you.
What then do you expect that those who are the special targets of your friend’s projects, and who are not emotionally invested in a relationship with your friends, would think?
Conservatives, who have been called “Neanderthals” for decades, who have read the progressive “by any means” blogs, who have experienced at first hand the liberals’ intention to refashion their lives, and witnessed the cavalier liberal indifference to the rule of law, can hardly be faulted for seeing the liberal as radically other in moral terms.
In doing so, the conservative or libertarian is merely acknowledging what the liberals have been shouting in their faces for many years.
Again, Neo: Even you cannot even talk about political matters to your liberal friends who will brook no deviation, and no gainsaying of their moral pronouncements. What possible interest would you think a conservative target of collectivist disdain, hatred, and political targeting, would have in classifying these disdainful, morally uninhibited fanatics, as moral peers, when they the liberals have themselves stated to conservatives, that they are not?
A man only has to tell you so many times that you are his enemy, before you begin to acknowledge that he has a point.
Some, no doubt, had seen pictures of Garrison or heard Wendell Phillips speak.
vanderleun Says:
October 26th, 2015 at 2:55 pm
“After the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia the Whites and the Reds slaughtered each other for years.”
This widely held belief is actually mistaken.
Yes, they fought bitter battles.
But — Spanish flu was by FAR the dominant cause of fatalities.
Which is why — for all of the suffering — you don’t read of many significant battles. They never happened.
Instead, the fighting consisted of irregular skirmishes. Trotsky was known to raise a fresh rabble by speechifying from the dining car. ( the last car in a passenger train ) And with that, the boys would march off to ‘battle’ — what ever that could mean with spontaneous formations. (!)
Spanish flu was such a problem that many White encampments simply imploded from the disease.
Likewise, the reason why Trotsky was raising ‘fresh ones’ was because his ‘army’ didn’t travel well — if it could even stay ‘well.’
And in all of that travail, it would be rare if either faction could field much.
The Reds won primarily because of logistics. Trotsky stayed on the rails — and had the critical national railroad repair yard in his rear. ( British built — up in St. Petersburg — it remained the only repair shop right into WWII.) (!!!)
Steam locomotives need immense amounts of maintenance.
The Whites couldn’t keep any captured locomotives functional for long.
Trotsky won the entire campaign by just winning the critical terrain around the Russian rail net.
As the Germans found out in 1941, other than the rail net, Russia has nothing, just no road net.
Russia was an endless quilt of subsistence farms.
This also meant that the Whites could never concentrate large forces — without promptly running out of food.
The horrific fatalities caused by Spanish flu have led distant observers to assume that the Russian civil war featured fighting at leas comparable to the Americans.
Whereas, the suffering was vast, the fighting sporadic.
When the Europeans intervened, they also discovered that military conditions were ‘impossible’ any distance from the rails. So the Reds needed only to put a blocking force at the railroad. It proved impossible to swing around the Reds.
&&&
I posted the above because of relevance: should Civil War II break out, it’s going to be a real come-as-you-are affair.
The Reds// Leftists will be in the terrible position that the Russian Whites held. For the entire logistics grid lies in Conservative America.
Big Red can’t keep it together for even ten-days without Conservative America.
It’s well to recall what Weimar Germans faced when their farmers stopped accepting fiat script: starvation.
Our major cities don’t even have enough gasoline such that everyone can drive out. Any attempt will look like those bizarre snaps taken above Beijing toll plazas.
“the liberals are the pawns, the leftists are the chess players.”
Succinct and rather accurate.
Too many dismiss Dems as stupid. This has several implications:
– they underestimate Dem leadership ability to hold power
– they think it is wasted effort to engage any Dem in a discussion
– they talk down to Dems
The team behind Obama has been brilliant politically.
Just one example: Reid refused to hold a vote over several years on the Budget (though the Senate is legally required to, without consequence if not), bypassing the deliberative process as it was designed. They effectively locked in ~$1T deficit spending for those years. The Dems then were able to demonize the conservatives when they attempted to use the few leverage points the GOP did have (e.g. the credit limit), making THEM look like the obstructionists.
The fact is the GOP were outwitted most of the time.
neo-neocon, you may find Arthur Brooks‘ views congenial to this discussion. Others may want to let him get a few words in edgewise (and he’s a possessor of many words).
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/muslim-neighbours-turned-against-christians-after-isis-captured-mosul-says-iraqi-priest-651298
Once again, an example of what happens to people who think their neighbors are good.
They may be good, but that’s only up until the greedy and evil ones get an Order authorizing your liquidation.
They weren’t evil and weak enough to do it on their own, but when backed by an Authority that forgives all sins and awards obedience, humans are capable of much.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734694/It-hard-appalling-nature-abuse-child-victims-suffered-1-400-children-sexually-exploited-just-one-town-16-year-period-report-reveals.html
And again, it’s not hard to figure out how that would work in the US. It probably already is and the MSM is covering it up, those social workers in Waco for example.
Blert, cruise missles in 1962 is absolute nonsense. The technology just didn’t exist, not the global GPS system, nor the electronics to make it work.
Neo,
Regarding your discussion with stan, here’s the litmus test for distinguishing a genuine liberal from a leftist:
Explain the law and policy, fact basis of the decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Cite the primary sources of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement. Then contrast the truth of the matter with the false/BDS narrative often asserted by Democrats. Discuss. Log his reaction.
You might, perhaps, raise the issue in the politically friendly context of criticizing Trump for his assumption of the false/BDS narrative.
Why does contrasting the law and policy, fact basis of OIF with the false/BDS narrative function as a litmus test for distinguishing a genuine liberal from a leftist?
Think of ‘Scoop Jackson’ Democrats like Senator Lieberman as genuine liberals.
One, the difference between the amply documented law and policy, fact basis of the Iraq intervention and the false/BDS narrative is stark. The grounds for the Iraq intervention are not speculative – the law and policy of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement is straightforward. In combination with the operative enforcement procedure, the fact findings that confirmed Iraq’s breach and triggered enforcement provide a dispositive fact pattern.
If he’s a genuine liberal with thoughtful integrity, then the stark difference between the law and policy, fact basis of OIF and the false/BDS narrative should be arresting. But if he’s a leftist, then he’ll spin and disqualify rather than face the facts.
Two, the law and policy of the Iraq intervention is mostly from President Clinton. The 2002 AUMF is mostly a repackaging and restatement of the law and policy for Iraq developed under Clinton, which only makes sense since Clinton built up the law and policy of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement, including regime change as the solution for Iraq’s continued breach, while struggling with the Saddam problem over Clinton’s entire presidency. As well, the international opposition to Bush’s enforcement with Iraq was the international opposition to Clinton’s enforcement with Iraq.
If he’s a genuine liberal with thoughtful integrity who’s a pro-Clinton Democrat, then Bush’s continuity from Clinton in confronting the Saddam problem should be arresting. But if he’s a leftist, then he’ll spin and disqualify rather than face the facts.
Three, the Iraq intervention was fundamentally liberal. Across the board, from disarming Saddam pursuant to UNSCR 687 to the humanitarian mandates of UNSCR 688, the mission to “bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (P.L. 105-235, 1998) was invested with the core principles of American leadership of the free world.
If he’s a genuine liberal in the Lieberman mold, then the fundamentally liberal character of the Iraq intervention carried forward by Bush from Clinton should resonate. But if he’s a leftist, then he’s opposed to American leadership of the free world.
You can use the law and policy, fact basis of OIF vs false/BDS narrative as a litmus test to distinguish genuine liberals from leftists in person.
You can also teach the litmus test to genuine liberals to help them identify politicians who may claim to be liberal but are actually leftist. Any Democrat who should know better yet has asserted the false/BDS narrative is exposed as a leftist. Or a sell-out who lacks thoughtful integrity and genuine liberal convictions.
Some, no doubt, had seen pictures of Garrison or heard Wendell Phillips speak.
They sent a Southern dynasty member to the Congress to cane one of the abolitionists when Congress was in session.
http://www.stephenpuleo.com/book/the-caning/
When insult is given in the South, a duel challenge is issued and accepted by the other party, and weapons chosen, seconds presented. That is how Andrew Jackson did it, he killed many in duels for insults and various other marks of dishonor.
That is not what the South gave to their enemies, because the South considered them too weak to be accorded gentleman honors of a duel. A caning is what is given to slaves and dogs.
Many factors conspired to cause the Civil War, but it was the caning that made conflict and disunion unavoidable five years later.
That conclusion is wrong, of course. The Democrats in Congress allowed Preston his assault, even though fairness of challenge and equality was not presented.
When Preston came back to the Democrat totalitarian controlled culture of the South, he was greeted with parades and cheers. The Southern Democrat obsession with Slavery as Virtue above and beyond anything else, even the US Constitution, was never going to be resolved without bloodshed. Neither will the current day Democrat party’s ambitions of Human Slavery 3.0 and Utopia, be resolved in any other fashion.
The technology just didn’t exist, not the global GPS system, nor the electronics to make it work.
The V2 rocket technology that the Germans used, did exist, although whether the Soviets could get it to work or not was hard to say. But certainly even the Islamic Jihadists in Palestine can rain rockets down on people.
Cruise “missiles” is perhaps an exaggeration of the technologies back then.
I read your post on Lerner walking neo, that and the cheers for Hillary Clinton amongst the BLM movement, sanctuary cities and the partisan vote against that….its difficult yo convince me that liberals are not indeed evil.
Democrats want to destroy the greatest Country that ever existed on earth. Why wouldn’t one properly label them as both stupid and evil? The real question is what to do with them. (No, I’m not advocating violence.)
Brooks caned Sumner for defaming an elderly relative from the sanctuary of the Senate floor, not Garrison.
I don’t know how many Jackson “killed in duels”. He fought several apparently. In one, most famously, he stuffed his coat with papers in an attempt to pad himself. It worked after a fashion. The ball of his opponent did not kill him as it otherwise would have; though he carried it till the day he died.
His sense of honor included re-cocking his pistol after his own misfire, and then shooting his opponent Dickenson to death.
DNW:
Where do I admit this? “Neo, you admit that you cannot talk about these issues, or even the issues of the day with your liberal friends because the the resultant fallout and hostility — the marginalizing and estrangement — would be so devastating to you.”
First of all, if you actually read what I’ve written in the other thread and in this one, I said I can talk to some of my liberal friends about politics, and do.
Second of all, the marginalizing and estrangement happened right at the outset. What happened, happened, and it involved ostracism by just a couple of people, anger from a couple more and a slight coolness from many (but certainly not all) of the rest. I CAN talk about these issues, but at this point I choose not to, except with a small group (three or four) of receptive liberal friends who seem to have no trouble with it, and who seem willing to actually listen to what I have to say in a thoughtful, respectful way.
That’s not an insignificant number. The vast majority of the people I choose not to talk to about politics at this point are people who don’t want to talk about politics IN GENERAL (I’ve made that clear, too, in the other thread) and I’ve found it to be a waste of time talking to them.
Then there’s a group that gets angry and testy. Some of them are close relatives, and in order to keep the peace we don’t talk about it, but mostly because I’ve tried talking to them and it’s counterproductive. I don’t want to waste my time and have fights with people all for nothing.
So there are many different groups of liberals with many different reactions, and I talk to them accordingly. In addition, sometimes even with the receptive group I just get tired of trying to explain myself, tired of the whole topic, weary more than anything. I realize that changing people’s minds ordinarily takes a long long time and a lot of argument—and, like the light bulb, they have to want to change. My change essays are called “A mind is a difficult thing to change,” after all. People in general are resistant to that sort of change, not just liberals.
You don’t really think Sumner would have fought Brooks if challenged, do you?
Do me a favor, from one anti-slavery man to another. Spend some time reading abolitionist literature – in depth.
Slavery is certainly an objective evil. Hell, I’m even opposed to the existence of doormen and waitresses and income taxes.
But the slavery issue seems to have been one that attracted the attention of some of the most unstable and vile personalities in American history. Persons that is, whose only redeeming moral characteristic was found their opposition to slavery.
People who could make the cold blooded murderer John Brown, who hacked men to death with a broadsword long before he wound up at Harper’s Ferry, out to be a political saint, certainly lack what one might call moral and mental balance.
Brooks caned Sumner for defaming an elderly relative from the sanctuary of the Senate floor, not Garrison.
I never mentioned Garrison.
The established course of action for defamation is a lawsuit or a challenge to a duel, and it was not the duty of some dynasty member to take that action upon himself.
As I stated before, a caning is not a duel, it is a punishment given to slaves and dogs.
You don’t really think Sumner would have fought Brooks if challenged, do you?
What does that have to do with anything?
Would Pamela Geller have raised up her arms to fight jihadists if they had sent her a notice? That’s not the point, is it now.
I’m not referring to just the other thread, but to numerous other comments made and implications left over a fairly long period.
Yet, in reading proviso laden objections to my statement which you have made here, it seems to me that you have in significant measure acceded the very point while intending to categorically rebut it.
People who could make the cold blooded murderer John Brown, who hacked men to death with a broadsword long before he wound up at Harper’s Ferry, out to be a political saint, certainly lack what one might call moral and mental balance.
Oh, so you want to talk about morality. Let’s talk about morality then, DNW.
On October 21, 1835, the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society announced that George Thompson would be speaking. Pro-slavery forces posted nearly 500 notices of a $100 reward for the citizen that would first lay violent hands on him. Thompson canceled at the last minute, and William Lloyd Garrison, a newspaper writer who spoke openly against the wrongs of slavery, was quickly scheduled to speak in his place. A lynch mob formed, forcing Garrison to escape through the back of the hall and hide in a carpenter’s shop. The mob soon found him, putting a noose around his neck to drag him away. Several strong men intervened and took him to the Leverett Street Jail. Phillips, watching from nearby Court Street, was a witness to the attempted lynching. After being converted to the abolitionist cause by Garrison in 1836, Phillips stopped practicing law in order to dedicate himself to the movement. He joined the American Anti-Slavery Society and frequently made speeches at its meetings. So highly regarded were his oratorical abilities that he was known as “abolition’s Golden Trumpet”. Like many of his fellow abolitionists who honored the free produce movement, Phillips took pains to avoid cane sugar and wear no clothing made of cotton, since both were produced by the labor of Southern slaves.
There is your Garrison and Phillips. Is this perchance the Morality DNW wants us to learn about?
Personally, I am not a fan of pacifism. Morality is quaint. Those who are very good at violence, should beware about equating their causes with morality and ethics.
Might makes right is a very dangerous philosophy, especially for people who lack the might to uphold their rights. Even if I am personally confident in holding to exactly that, and think people like Hirsi can absorb the punches, that does not mean I think it is a system fit for other people given the costs.
You brought up honor, and the fact that the victim was not accorded the protocols of the code duello.
John Brown was a true believer and a fanatic, on par with McVeigh and Anders Breivik.
Historically, that’s the context, and if the situation is dire enough, people will cling to the might and power of such a figure as a martyr. A society’s heroes are often always their best killers and mass murderers. You ever notice the Left’s reaction to Chris the sniper vs the American patriotic reaction…
A society’s heroes kills many enemies of that society, but never a member of that society. It makes no sense for Moderns like you, DNW, to consider John Brown much of anything, except someone who killed an ancestor of yours. He’s not your society’s hero, you never lived amongst his society. At best, he is your dynasty’s enemy, since he harmed some dynastic member sometime ago.
It would make no sense for the Left to consider Chris a hero of America, because Chris only killed foreign jihadists and enemies of his mission. If Chris aborted 1 million babies and made bank on it, the Left might consider him a hero then.
Sometime in the future, they’ll reference back to this moment in their histories, or what is left of it in the Dark Age, and say that because McVeigh existed and Anders Breiveik existed, all of the US patriots in Breitbart, Tea Party, had evidence of certainly lacking what one might call moral and mental balance.
Liberals are evil and smart.
They can carve up a baby one moment, and sell its parts for profit the next. Many other examples too.
Yes, there are levels of evil. Some liberals, for example, will disagree with re-education camps for capitalists. Theirs is a bell curve like all others’.
PS: I’m long done giving them the benefit of the doubt. Does it show?
No, I earlier did in the context of moral and mental health, and the potential reaction of any southerner to having seen an image of him.
Sumner was protected from lawsuit by having committed his defamation on the Senate floor.
My contention was that Sumner would probably not have fought, despite your insinuation that he was entitled to have been challenged. You do not seem to dispute this conclusion, at least.
An elderly man was seen as entitled to have his case taken up by a proxy, in this case, a younger family member.
I’m not sure what there is to argue here …
I don’t think that slaves or dogs deserve to be caned, as they cannot be considered fully morally responsible agents. Unlike Senators.
I have no idea what to make of this, or even what it ostensibly means.
Democrats are both evil and stupid.
Demonic actually.
Coulter documents it to the hilt ….
I want to add here that the impulse to label all liberals as evil is the same impulse that–when on the other side–led to or at the very least facilitated the Cultural Revolution in China, the killing fields in Cambodia, the WWII Holocaust (for example, one of the ways the Nazis trained their own baby killers to get over their, etc…
When my head rolls down the embankment, Néo will mutter: ‘I told you not to be such an extremist’ …
My contention was that Sumner would probably not have fought, despite your insinuation that he was entitled to have been challenged. You do not seem to dispute this conclusion, at least.
He was entitled if he was a Southerner being treated as an equal. Since he was not, the South did not treat him as an equal. What part of this do you think your non existent evidence, dispels?
What does Southern honor have to do with the rules of the Senate floor? The dueling system for insults given is well known amongst Southern aristocratic land owning, slave owning, or politically connected dynasties. It was still slightly in vogue, although lynching and public mobs were getting more popular as the decades went on.
As I mentioned before, what does Pamela Geller’s refusal to fight Islamic Jihad if given notice, have to do with the motivations of the Islamic Jihad for trying to kill her or other people around that venue?
What difference would it make if Sumner would or would not have agreed to a duel, he wasn’t offered one nor a challenge. Is your point that anyone that refuses a duel, like people who refused to fight John Brown, was entitled to a Southern caning? Is that your position On Morality now a days, DNW.
As for the facts of the case, this a preliminary summation although other accounts, even from the pro Democrat Southern side, do not contest its accuracy.
Sumner then attacked the authors of the Act, Senators Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina, saying,
“The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight — I mean the harlot, slavery. For her his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this senator.”
In addition Sumner mocked Butler’s speaking ability, which had been impeded by a recent stroke:
[He] “touches nothing which he does not disfigure with error, sometimes of principle, sometimes of fact. He cannot open his mouth, but out there flies a blunder.”[3]
According to Manisha Sinha (2003), Sumner had been ridiculed and insulted by both Douglas and Butler for his opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law and the Kansas Nebraska Act earlier, with Butler crudely race baiting Sumner by making sexual allusions to black women, like many slaveholders who accused abolitionists of promoting interracial marriage.[4]
According to Hoffer (2010), “It is also important to note the sexual imagery that recurred throughout the oration, which was neither accidental nor without precedent. Abolitionists routinely accused slaveholders of maintaining slavery so that they could engage in forcible sexual relations with their slaves.”[5] Douglas said during the speech that “this damn fool is going to get himself killed by some other damn fool.”[6]
Representative Preston Brooks, Butler’s cousin, was infuriated. He later said that he intended to challenge Sumner to a duel, and consulted with fellow South Carolina Representative Laurence M. Keitt on dueling etiquette. Keitt told him that dueling was for gentlemen of equal social standing, and that Sumner was no better than a drunkard, due to the supposedly coarse language he had used during his speech. Brooks said that he concluded that since Sumner was no gentleman, it would be more appropriate to beat him with his cane.
….
Senator John J. Crittenden attempted to intervene, and pleaded with Brooks not to kill Sumner. Senator Robert Toombs then interceded for Crittenden, telling Keitt not to attack someone who was not a party to the dispute, though Toombs also indicated later that he had no issue with Brooks beating Sumner, and in fact approved of it.
The cane Brooks used was broken into several pieces, which he left on the blood soaked floor of the Senate chamber. Brooks later wrote that he had saved the portion of the cane which contained the gold head.[22] This portion of the cane was worked to smooth the edges and finish, and eventually ended up at the Old State House Museum in Boston, where it is on display.[23] Southern lawmakers made rings out of the pieces left on the Senate floor, which they wore on neck chains to show their solidarity with Brooks, who boasted “[The pieces of my cane] are begged for as sacred relics.”
These are the actions of a fanatical culture, one devoted to the power of evil, what people call slavery now a days and what I call Slavery 2.0. It is almost indistinguishable from how Islamic Jihadists and such fanatics act.
I know them well, for some would call me a fanatic, of the True Believer mode. Closer to the Knights Hospitaller, though.
As for your, I don’t know what to call it, defense or arguing for extenuating circumstances of this case, DNW. I don’t know what Morality you were intended to show us, but it’s not a Morality that is going to bolster civilization much.
Crittenden if you read his short bio, was in favor of compromise to stop the Civil War. He failed, mostly because of Democrat war mongers.
Robert Augustus Toombs (July 2, 1810 — December 15, 1885) was an American and Confederate political leader, Whig Party senator from Georgia, a founding father of the Confederacy, its first Secretary of State, and a Confederate general in the American Civil War of 1861-1865. He feuded bitterly with Confederate President Jefferson Davis. According to Jacob S. Clawson, he was “a bullish politician whose blend of acerbic wit, fiery demeanor, and political tact aroused the full spectrum of emotions from his constituents and colleagues….[he] could not balance his volatile personality with his otherwise keen political skill.”
“Volatile personality” coming from a guy who favors dishonorable brawls on the Senate floor is something else, certainly.
This is the person who stopped Crittenden from intervening in the fight, which is not much of a fight so much as a one sided punishment and beatdown, something Southern culture was proud of. Why make excuses for that pride, DNW, if excuses you seek to make. The Democrats of the Southern culture and totalitarian system didn’t make excuses about it. They would know, they were there, they were part of that, you weren’t even alive back then. Why do you care one way or another, about this “Morality”.
And it is true what Sumner said on the Senate floor, that’s also why he was attacked. He hit upon the head of the Democrat strategy for expanding slavery to Every New Territory in the United States. This was even listed in the Causes for Secession, written by Southern plantation owners and politicians, not Lincoln or Sherman.
Even in 1835, the Democrats that controlled the South was capable of projecting their mob power to targets they put bounties on. The evil faction that fueled their political power with slavery, would be more deserving of criticism than the pacifism of the Quakers and abolitionists. The latter were not warriors nor fighters nor killers, but then again, Lincoln was different, he was a nationalist, not a pacifist. Neither was Sherman someone that the Georgia militia could easily defeat.
On October 21, 1835, the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society announced that George Thompson would be speaking. Pro-slavery forces posted nearly 500 notices of a $100 reward for the citizen that would first lay violent hands on him. Thompson canceled at the last minute, and William Lloyd Garrison, a newspaper writer who spoke openly against the wrongs of slavery, was quickly scheduled to speak in his place. A lynch mob formed, forcing Garrison to escape through the back of the hall and hide in a carpenter’s shop.
Reminds me of Fatwas declared against Ayan Hirsi and the Dutch video maker, Van Gogh, the actual great great whatever descendant of the more famous Gogh painter.
Islam is also known for its slave raids, how it projects it and uses it to fund political power.
Slavery wasn’t why the Democrat party was evil, at least not in the fashion practiced by the Romans, Greeks, or Christian ME of the 1-3rd century AD. No, what made the Democrat party evil was something else, their thirst for power over everybody.
I love the light bulb joke. “How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change.”
DNW::
When people make assertions about something they think I’ve said, I would think they would provide links or quotes.
That you can’t do that—and that in fact in this thread and others I’ve said the opposite of what you say I’ve said—says a lot.
I’ve written a few posts where I mention my friends and whether or not to talk to them about politics, and generally I do not express fear of talking but am more likely to discuss disappointment at some of their responses, and a feeling of futility at how few really listen or want to talk about it. If anything, it’s this sense of spinning my wheels that discourages me from talking to people (except for the ones who will listen). For example, I talk quite a bit about it in this post from nearly ten years ago:
I’m pretty sure that’s the longest statement on this blog of my point of view on the subject, and it’s pretty much my point of view now.
I have no idea what you’re talking about when you think I’ve somehow conceded your point that I supposedly “cannot talk about these issues, or even the issues of the day with [my] liberal friends because the the resultant fallout and hostility — the marginalizing and estrangement — would be so devastating to [me].” I’m actually saying exactly the opposite—that it can be difficult, but that I not only can but that I must. Never do I say that it’s “so devastating” that I can’t and don’t do it. Sometimes I experience grief or pain from it, and the fallout from it, and sometimes (often) I feel futility and discouragement from that. But that’s a very different thing, and I do not fail to talk about it, although I certainly don’t buttonhole everyone I meet every time I meet them.
G6loq:
The fact that some Democrats (particularly leftists) are evil and stupid is irrelevant to the topic at hand: whether all are.
It is both absurd and yes, demonic, to state that they are, as you do.
And yes, it’s the same impulse that leads to the killing fields.
Reminds me of Fatwas declared against Ayan Hirsi and the Dutch video maker, Van Gogh, the actual great great whatever descendant of the more famous Gogh painter.
Theo Van Gogh was extreme in his pronouncements some will say, so naturally:
Van Gogh was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri while cycling to work…The killer shot Van Gogh eight times with an HS2000 handgun.
Bouyeri was also on a bicycle and fired several bullets, hitting Van Gogh and two bystanders. Wounded, Van Gogh ran to the other side of the road and fell to the ground on the cycle lane. According to eyewitnesses, Van Gogh’s last words were “Don’t do it, don’t do it.” or “Have mercy, have mercy, don’t do it, don’t do it.” Bouyeri walked up to Van Gogh, who was on the ground, and calmly shot him several more times at close range.
Bouyeri cut Van Gogh’s throat with a large knife and tried to decapitate him, after which he stabbed the knife deep into Van Gogh’s chest, reaching his spinal cord. He attached a note to the body with a smaller knife. Van Gogh died on the spot.[12] The two knives were left implanted. The note was addressed to and contained a death threat to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who went into hiding. It also threatened Western countries and Jews.
Now, let’s go back to discussing the eventual possibility of Conservatives mass murdering POS Libtards …
Are the Democrats evil? stupid? crazy? or simply sticky? I think they’re probably a mixture of all those things. But one thing worth mentioning is that they have different criteria than (most) Republicans. It’s really visible this year. There’s a portion of each party that wants to see the best for the country, and there’s a portion of each party that wants to see what’s best for their tribe. The Republican ideal has always been that a rising tide lifts all boats, that the job of government is to create a fair playing field and allow people the opportunity to succeed. The Democrats have tended to think that the role of government is to apportion favor, to put it in a mean way, or to put it more nicely, to protect each group’s interest. The Dems are interested in output. They judge Supreme Court decisions based on what they do for them. They look at tax law in terms of what helps whom. And down the list, on every issue. And it doesn’t occur to them (or to the cluster of them that think this way) that anyone else views things differently. No matter how much we try to explain it to them, they assume that we’re all trying to play the system for the greatest advantage to our factions. And this is why a lot of conservatives hate Trump. He’s part of the opposition: not necessarily a liberal, but an apportioner. His whole claim is that he’ll improve the rate of return for his tribe. He not only gives up the moral high ground, he practically guarantees that no one will ever think of the Republicans as having he moral high ground again.
If/when the cold civil war turns hot; I will without hesitation attempt to kill anyone who poses a threat to me and mine. But I will reserve my hatred for those who are truly evil, the gulag dreamers of the hard left. I will kill their utopian dreamer foot soldiers as required, but I will not hate them. Some situations require a response of deep, visceral hatred; but hatred burns a hole in your humanity. Use it sparingly.
Are the Democrats evil? stupid? crazy? or simply sticky? I think they’re probably a mixture of all those things.
Ya think?:
WHY ARE ALL MASS MURDERERS LIBERALS?
Naturally, some will nitpick the list …
I should also note that a lot of this, maybe even a whole lot of this, involves race. Blacks have historically never trusted government to be fair (for some odd reason), and have tended to lionize politicians who played the system, from Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. to Bill Clinton. For some groups (not just blacks), Hillary Clinton’s reputation as a cutthroat liar won’t be seen as a negative.
I should also note that a lot of this, maybe even a whole lot of this, involves race. Blacks have historically never trusted government to be fair (for some odd reason), and have tended to lionize politicians who played the system, from Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. to Bill Clinton. For some groups (not just blacks), Hillary Clinton’s reputation as a cutthroat liar won’t be seen as a negative.
Serves them well:
America’s Debt Prison Scandal
All in Democ.rat controlled areas …
Now back to the possibility of Conservatives mass murdering Libtards while, allegedly, having the gall to make use of their run-of-the-milldemonizing language …. Can’t have that. Very concerning ….
It is extremely difficult for people to even pull the trigger, if they believe in the humanity of their target. This has been documented through various wars fought by Americans, one way or another.
Military conditioning and a life time of “custardly old timer stubborness” may override it, since an extremely strong willpower and justification of dynasty defense can break past that barrier, but for most people, they aren’t defending anything concrete.
Hate and other strong emotions in war was necessary because without it, people would just not fight. They would just sit there and watch other people fight and die, and probably get killed as a result.
In all cases, PTSD can set in if a person’s rationalization or justification fails at any point during or after the action. That person, that trigger puller, then becomes “combat ineffective” for the duration.
Current modern day military shooting exercises uses operant conditioning to allow a person to shoot, even to the extent that police amateur SWAT teams are able to fire immediately upon seeing guns pointed at them, irregardless of who they are raiding, drug users or just regular American civilians with no criminal record. It doesn’t matter to a person that has been operant conditioned to trigger pull against targets. Since they are targets, not humans.
This doesn’t provide the justification and rationalization needed to prevent PTSD though. The guilt is there.
Whether people get devoured by hate or negative emotions, when they lose control of their emotions, or whether they get devoured by guilt when they lose control of their rationalizations, it’s not a field that has a lot of positive outcomes.
Never do I say that it’s “so devastating” that I can’t and don’t do it. Sometimes I experience grief or pain from it, and the fallout from it, and sometimes (often) I feel futility and discouragement from that. But that’s a very different thing, and I do not fail to talk about it, although I certainly don’t buttonhole everyone I meet every time I meet them.
That seems to apply more to people who live in California, such as the crypto conservatives and Tea Parties “hiding their identities” there. And by hiding, I actually mean hiding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Hospitaller
While Christianity pursued the extermination of heretics and the conversion of pagans, their ability to project mass killing power is intentionally dampened by the New Testament in the Revealed Truth of the Christian holy book, the Bible.
That is why socialism and marxism does most of the mass killings in recent human history. It has little to nothing to do with hate or strong emotions in and of itself. Strong emotions merely put the system to the limit, if the System is Islam, you get one thing. If the System is Christianity, it is another entirely.
Every time pagans and raiders converted to Christianity, it dampened their aggression and expansionism. This included the Vikings as well, very well known as a warrior culture, with virtues, and raids as well across a lot of territory.
Somalia has pirates still because they are Muslim. If they were 99% Christian, the pirates wouldn’t be as popular.
If the Left gets exterminated because they wiped out Christianity and invited in Islam… well whose fault would that be?
Here’s a question I sometimes ask myself:
If I were living in Venezuela during the rise of Chavez, what would I have done about it? It’s pretty obvious that dissent is not a viable option when half the country is in the president’s gang.
And that’s what we’re talking about here: political parties as criminal organizations.
I also once dwelled in leftward circles, and jumped away due to the extremism I saw taking them over. That conservatives can now apparently be targeted for financial extermination by the Obama regime has made the left all the more repugnant and the general environment frightening.
Obamites have become so powerful that it is unclear if conservatives have any real hope of resurrecting an America with bedrock values of liberty and justice. The more the pendulum swings this way, the more dire the consequence could be.
There are a number of horrendous possibilities for how this ends if Obama is succeeded by yet more catastrophic policies. For a peek at one of the stronger of those prospects, consider the present suicidal trajectory of Europe. Only an ocean buffers us from such horror – and only partially at that.
As for conservative extremism in reaction to leftist excess, the mainstream media portrays all conservatives that way regardless. In an election, even the most moderate of sellout RINOs are bestowed the “knuckle-dragging racist” label.
We may at last have only the final solace that none of us will survive this life. On our way out, we can congratulate our lefty neighbors for having made death so appealing.
If the Left gets exterminated because they wiped out Christianity and invited in Islam… well whose fault would that be?
Hmmm … whose fault?
A nice Libtard explosion was the Spanish Civil War.
They pushed, pushed, pushed and then the push back began …
upon which to this day they’ve cried victimhood.
Thing is, they eventually started mass killing each other.
Read Beevor, Battle for Spain. He describes the circular firing squads. The Lincoln brigades got seriously impacted. Stuck there, their passports confiscated….
Very TEA party like all this history ….
My experience of liberals is very similar to Neo’s. Most of the ones I know are genuinely decent, good-hearted, intelligent people. They really think they’re looking at the facts and arriving at rational conclusions, even as they are swept away on waves of emotion for somebody like Obama, or against somebody like Bush. Trying to figure this out, one thing I notice is that most of them whom I know and who are baby boomers like me were either hippies or hippie wannabes in their youth. And although they settled down into jobs and families etc., they never lost what they would describe as their early “idealism.”
In other words, they haven’t changed much since 1970. I was one of them at that time, but as the 1970s wore on I gradually began to change, in a way somewhat similar to Neo’s–it just came more and more to seem to me that our hippie leftism did not fit the facts of the world around us, either in terms of describing what is or prescribing what should be. By 1980 or so I was more or less a conservative.
But to them it’s always 1968 or 1970. It’s always them against Nixon, against Bull Connor, against war, against racism–in short for everything good, and against everything bad. They are the children of light, and everyone on the right is allied with the forces of darkness. I don’t think this is an unfair or exaggerated description of how they see the world at the emotional level. They may have ideas built on top of that, but that’s the foundation.
Good! Federal Government is pro-actively attempting to control Conservatives possible mass extermination of their Democ.rat compatriots:
Feds Ready Forced Disclosure of Donors to Conservative Groups. “
Might preclude terrible things ….
BTW, I’ve recently returned to university and have to take the craptastic multiculti classes we all hear about. I see the source of the problem up close on a daily basis.
The left may not be motivated by evil in their hearts (maybe), but what difference does it make? If they go about performing evil in the name of goodness, you still get evil.
Ignorance, petulance and oikophobia might be excusable in a child or adolescent but we’re not talking about children here.
At some point, they need to be accountable for their actions.
At some point, they need to be accountable for their actions.
It’s happened before ….
Ok. Looks like I owe you a good faith response. And, maybe a couple of what I took as only recent examples.
I didn’t think it was necessary.
Well, possibly I added two and two and came up with five, but I was thinking of comments like these:
Neo continues presently …
See above.
[skipped .. a passage of Neo’s describing her standing up for her beliefs ]
Just to be clear, “so devastating” was a characterization, clearly mine, and not proffered as a quote.
so then …
Ok : Startled, disapproving, a few stopped talking, most not venomous …
A tangential matter perhaps? But it sounded to me as if you were understandably concerned with maintaining … good relations.
Well why was it OK, for”Democrats to think
Republicans were evil” & (Republicans to have the rather innocuous opinion that “republicans thought Democrats were stupid”.
Now that Democrats are hearing some of their rhetoric echoed back to them, They have to *get their knickers in a wad*?
It’s as absurd as Dan Rather’s crybaby movie being entitled “Truth”!
Don t you think we are talking about *Party Operatives” & not the rank & file voters ?
Molly,
If that’s true, then the rank and file won’t turn out for Hillary. I wouldn’t bet on that being the case.
Oh MY GOD! It has begun:
STORM WASHINGTON to protest Libtard policies
The insufferable gall of these people!
Very, very concerning …
Matt, indeed there must be *some* democrat voters who are paying attention to her blatant lies? I guess that will tell the tale, if the regulars vote her in knowing what they must all know….
My God the woman has a trail of slime following her that cannot be overlooked….
a vote for her is a vote for *everything disgusting
about their kind of politics*
DNW:
Yes, I am concerned with maintaining good relations, so I pick and choose whom I talk to, when, why, and what I say. As I would in any social interaction with anyone.
You made a specific statement that I “cannot talk about these issues” with my friends because it would be too “devastating.” And yet I have consistently said that I can and do talk, and have discussed it with all my friends at some time or other. I discuss such matters fairly often with a few liberal friends, intermittently with others, not at all with others (in particular, to both avoid conflict AND because I have discovered with many people such discussions are futile).
The word you used, “devastated,” is a very extreme one. Synonyms for “devastate” are—well, take a look. You were implying that I think that if I were to have such conversations (the ones I’m already having) that I fear I would be laid waste, wrecked, ruined. That’s quite a statement.
The situation is bad, but it’s not that bad.
Neo you re conflicted
I don’t think this is an unfair or exaggerated description of how they see the world at the emotional level.
Pot and marijuana, when taken at an early age, say before 25 yo, freezes and degrades a person’s emotional control, to the level of a child six years old to a teenager 15 years old. And it never goes up.
Prodigies, people who had eidetic memories when reading a textbook once for a test and acing it, when they took pot, lost those abilities and became rather sub average.
So “idealism” may be what people call it, but the childlike emotional state being frozen is a result of drugs that alter the mind, very useful to control livestock that think they are free.
It gets real obvious when you see 33 year olds act like 15 year old teenagers, always complaining and doing nothing to better themselves, what pot use did to their developmental cycles.
Well, I can instance my erstwhile friend EM, a “good Liberal” whom I have known for 25 years. Spent the night at her house more than once, been with her and her husband for Thanksgiving, etc. She’s a newspaper editor (Lord help us).
I sent her an email protesting Obama’s Iran treaty and the fact that he did nothing to get the four American prisoners out of that place, and her response? “Obama’s still black — get over it.”
I was so outraged by this gratuitous charge of racism that I have cut her off (this is the latest, most egregious example: I usually avoid discussing politics at all with my friends who are True Believers). She also slammed all Southerners for the crime of Dylan Root, the man who shot those Charleston churchgoers.
All of us, mind you. What is that if not wicked? anyway, it’s bad enough for me. I’ll be dadgummed if I want to spend any time with someone who’s known me for a quarter of a century and spits in my face for pointing out One Instance of Obama’s perfidy. Wow.
I’ll just say, too, that unless our old buddies are moral imbeciles, they do have a moral responsibility to make themselves informed. My parents brought us up that way: that’s our duty as American citizens. Dereliction of duty is a serious fault, and is leading to the loss of all our freedom.
Someone here mentioned that the proof of the Left’s bad faith is in the fact that they do not care one iota for the plight, e.g., of women in the Muslim world; do not give a damn about China’s (and India’s) horrific pollution, etc.: Like someone said, “The issue is never the issue; the issue is always Power.” Once I spotted THAT, the spell was broken.
Anyway, Neo, I do wonder one thing — at what point do you hold our lib friends responsible? I can’t let them off the hook completely.
There is a time for shunning. It probably will not cause the shunned to understand why they have been ostracized but it is a starting place. When push comes to shove, they will (perhaps) realize they were on the losing side. I have only a few doubts about how civil war 2.0 is resolved.
Beverly:
The friend you describe, EM, is NOT a liberal in my book. She is also NOT relatively apolitical. She is in fact VERY political—since she’s a newspaper editor, I would bet money she’s very political.
I will tell you one thing—none of my friends has ever said anything remotely like that to me. That sort of reaction is a classic lefty ploy. Ad hominem attacks are not okay. Accusations of racism in the absence of racism are not okay.
A couple of times people have done something like that to me, but they were not good friends to begin with and I immediately put them in the category “leftist” in my mind. And I hold leftists responsible.
AND because I have discovered with many people such discussions are futile).
If people were truly ignorant, they would be near a blank slate and it would not be futile educating them. What you’re describing here, as before, is not ignorance at all, but something quite different.
Ymarsakar:
Not in the least.
If people aren’t that interested in politics, don’t talk about it ordinarily, and don’t want to talk about it for more than a moment or two, that’s one of the reasons it’s futile. It takes a long time and a lot of concentration to follow the whole thing.
They’re not “truly ignorant” in that they haven’t just dropped in from planet Mars. Very very few of them are history buffs or politics buffs (I can only think of one person, actually, who might meet that description), but they have the usual sound bites and headline-type knowledge of the news. They don’t spend much time on it—just enough to imbibe the general message the MSM is conveying.
And even if people have some interest (not a lot; most of my friends don’t have a lot of interest in politics or history), it ordinarily takes a long time to change someone’s mind on issues that go so deep, and especially someone’s political orientation. It took me about a year and involved curiosity, many many many hours of reading, and motivation and interest.
If people aren’t that interested in politics, don’t talk about it ordinarily, and don’t want to talk about it for more than a moment or two, that’s one of the reasons it’s futile. It takes a long time and a lot of concentration to follow the whole thing.
This doesn’t apply to the social rules that members of the Left must obey in life, or be called out as racists or homophobes. So when did those disinterested people fail to obey those rules, if they were so ignorant of things?
The Left is a religion, it controls people’s behavior. It doesn’t require people to know or talk about politics.
They don’t spend much time on it–just enough to imbibe the general message the MSM is conveying.
The same could be said about me in 2001, yet it didn’t take long for me to begin thinking like a human being with free will. What’s so different about them? The ignorance, is not the issue of division or divide between there.
Beverly,
Like neo, I’m a former liberal, and I think I understand them. Progressives are not the same, and they either are, or fancy they are, the chess players. To them, anything is OK in the service of winning. Lives are dispensable.
Liberals, if I remember correctly, are only true believers in that they’re convinced there’s only one right way to think, and it’s OK not to be tolerant of the other side because otherwise you’re condoning evil. As a liberal, you’re morally superior and enlightened, and the other side are truly lesser human beings. You hope that someday they’ll become enlightened too, but you don’t hold your breath. You don’t notice that the MSM is biased because as far as you’re concerned they only tell what’s true as you know it. If the MSM reports it, it IS true. That the other side complains of bias is only evidence of their small-mindedness and prejudice. I recall my attitude towards conservatives, and it was contempt.
Now I see liberals as pawns, and hard core progressives as evil. Together they’re formidable, and my worst fear is that we may already have lost.
I’ve been reading Mises’ ‘Liberalism’, which is tricky as he is using liberal and liberalism to mean what they actually did during the Enlightenment and not how Liberal has been usurped since the mid-19th century.
I just read his thoughts on the Psychology of Antiliberalism, which would be what we would call the psychology of Liberals today. Anyway, Mises points out two elements at play, resentment and a neurosis he calls Fourier Complex. Resentment in the traditional and oft seen willingness to do damage to themselves if it means bringing down those they resent, i.e., the “wealthy”. This part can actually be combatted by reasoning. The Fourier Complex however defies reason and the Leftist must come to their senses on their own. Not unlike the story Bookworm tells of her political shift. Mises defies excerpting almost, so please forgive the long piece below that I hope explains the “neurasthenic condition”:
***************
In the life of the neurotic the “saving lie” has a double function. It not only consoles him for past failure, but holds out the prospect of future success. In the case of social failure, which alone concerns us here, the consolation consists in the belief that one’s inability to attain the lofty goals to which one has aspired is not to be ascribed to one’s own inadequacy, but to the defectiveness of the social order. The malcontent expects from the overthrow of the latter the success that the existing system has withheld from him. Consequently, it is entirely futile to try to make clear to him that the utopia he dreams of is not feasible and that the only foundation possible for a society organized on the principle of the division of labor is private ownership of the means of production. The neurotic clings to his “saving lie,” and when he must make the choice of renouncing either it or logic, he prefers to sacrifice logic. For life would be unbearable for him without the consolation that he finds in the idea of socialism. It tells him that not he himself, but the world, is at fault for having caused his failure; and this conviction raises his depressed self-confidence and liberates him from a tormenting feeling of inferiority.
Just as the devout Christian could more easily endure the misfortune that befell him on earth because he hoped for a continuation of personal existence in another, better world, where those who on earth had been first would be last and the last would be first; so, for modern man, socialism has become an elixir against earthly adversity. But whereas the belief in immortality, in a recompense in the hereafter, and in resurrection formed an incentive to virtuous conduct in this life, the effect of the socialist promise is quite different. It imposes no other duty than that of giving political support to the party of socialism; but at the same time it raises expectations and demands.
This being the character of the socialist dream, it is understandable that every one of the partisans of socialism expects from it precisely what has so far been denied to him. Socialist authors promise not only wealth for all, but also happiness in love for everybody, the full physical and spiritual development of each individual, the unfolding of great artistic and scientific talents in all men, etc.
Mises, Ludwig von. Liberalism (pp. 16-17). Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kindle Edition.
Courtesy of J K Brown at Bookworm Room
This would be consistent with my claim before, that they are deceiving themselves and the world.
It seems to me we have the same problem we ascribe to the Muslims..moderates and jihadis. Only in the American Left it is the “nice” liberals and the ends-justify-means Leftists; the All Lives Matter and the rioting felonious Black Lives Matter divisions.The nice ones are nice to the radicals, providing support by not saying No (and perhaps other means). The un-nice ones are fomenting riots and injuring people and property.
Now tell me how we gonna fix them? Talk nicely? Prostrate ourselves in front of tattooed violent felons? Or fight back?
Which is it to be? We know from long experience that imprisoning the violent offenders yields more, not less violence on discharge. The soft liberals and the hard Left both favor DeBlasio’s opening of prisons and doing away with effective policing..
The painfully obvious answer is liberals-Leftists are the enemy, whether “nicely” or violently hostile. Enemies must be dealt with as such. We required unconditional surrender in WWII of Germany and japan. Unconditional. And long term the Krauts at least are back at being nutty again. East German thinking is taking over the West of Germany. The enemy prospers, not merely survives. The destructive liberal-Leftist forces have brought America to its knees.
So what is the solution, Neo?Talk-talk is less effective than War-War.
We may not like it but the forward looking see violence as unavoidable unless abject surrender is accepted.
neo-neocon, all I can say is that all knowledge from experience has a sell-by date. I see people drawing distinctions between leftists and liberals, or progressives and liberals, with liberals being the pawns and the leftists/progressives being the chess players or puppet masters.
But these days there isn’t much difference between the two, especially in the younger generation. If you care to waste some time on the internet you’ll find articles like this.
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2015/06/03/im-a-liberal-professor-and-my-liberal-students-terrify-me/
I would bet that the professor is more like the liberal you were once, more like the liberals you grew up among.
(As an aside, I am amused this liberal professor cites as an example of one thing that might upset his liberal students one thing that definitely not; communism. His liberal students that terrify him were occupying Wall Street screaming and protesting for it, and would love to vote for Sanders as the next best thing. But being a liberal he is compelled to look for political balance where none exists, I suppose because as a liberal and an educator he can’t face the fact this is an exclusively leftist phenomenon and his profession is to blame.)
To cut to the chase, these up and coming liberals, if you want to call them that are being trained to think pathologically. I think it starts off well-intentioned enough, out of a overprotective concern for safety. But the children are taught the world is hopelessly dangerous and they need adults to be protectors and prosecutors. Later there is a definite political aspect, and the indoctrination doesn’t wait until college or even high school to begin anymore. They learn to be hypersensitive to the slightest deviation from leftist orthodoxy. And that they need “safe spaces” because words that make them feel “unsafe” because they deviate from leftist orthodoxy really are making them unsafe. Words are actually violence, and those words they can’t stand to hear are threatening their very physical safety. And as children they learned that only adults acting as protectors and prosecutors can preserve their safety.
So, who is up for a Potemkin campus title IX tribunal to stamp out imaginary sexual violence because someone didn’t like a comment someone made on their own face book page?
And of course since the victim is always right, the speaker/author is punished. This just reinforces this distorted way of thinking, their neuroses, whatever you want to call it. It’s all real! Microaggressions, trigger words, words are violence, all of it. In fact there is currently a juvenile rapist and murderer on trial for raping and killing his teacher on the east coast. His defense is that she used “trigger words.” So effectively she brought it on herself since she committed violence against him first. It’s almost a self-defense argument he’s making.
As Thomas Sowell noted the only reason to call trivialities like facial expressions or verbal slights “microaggressions” is to justify actual aggression later.
An exchange between Melissa Harris-Perry (as transcribed by the Washington Free Beacon; I would never watch MSNBC) and a Latino Republican activist caught my eye.
http://freebeacon.com/culture/melissa-harris-perry-scolds-guest-to-be-super-careful-about-saying-hard-worker-because-of-slavery/
“MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY: Alfonso, I feel you. But I just want to pause on one thing. Because I don’t disagree with you that I actually think Mr. Ryan is a great choice for this role. But I want us to be super careful when we use the language “hard worker,” because I actually keep an image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like.”
Mention hard worker and MHP’s thoughts immediately run to slavery and the cotton fields. And so naturally she had to put Alfonso’s words in the “context of relative privilege.”
But that’s not what caught my eye. Recall the maniacal killer in VA who shot two former colleagues while they were doing a live newscast? When he was employed as a reporter at the same station he was also a walking racial grievance committee. Everything was a trigger word. But one his former coworkers remembered one in particular; “field” as in “so and so is in the field.” His mind, like MHP’s, would immediately run to slavery and he’d accuse the speaker of making a special reference to cotton fields because he was black.
Just as people like MHP had twisted his mind to operate.
So yes I do see a lot of evil on the left. I believe the educators and administrators K through college are cultivating what does turn into mental illness in many of these students. Over the past ten years or so college campus mental health workers and students themselves report increasing levels of mental illness and emotional problems like “overwhelming anxiety.” Some may be doing this because of liability concerns, but many others particularly in the social sciences and gender/ethnic studies departments and from college diversity offices are distorting their thinking in order to politically indoctrinate them, and they are in fact evil. I think the students are victims, not even pawns. But some of them are ticking time bombs. No doubt they’ll require years of therapy, perhaps even deprogramming as with those leaving a cult, to undo the damage. But that assumes they recognize the problem. Some on the other hand will wallow in their indoctrination and indulge what they’ve been trained to think is well justified rage and will kill people those who “deserve it.”
I also put the #BlackLivesMatter crowd in this category as well. Because the activists are calling for a race war (that’s what the VA killer hoped to spark, too) as well as executing cops. I consider people who call for murder, and those who join groups where the leaders call for murder seeing nothing wrong with that, evil as well.
http://q13fox.com/2015/09/23/game-of-tag-banned-to-ensure-physical-emotional-safety-of-students/
I’m sorry I wrote a book earlier. The only reason it’s so long is because I didn’t have time to write something shorter, as the saying goes.
Earlier I said this sort of stuff starts well-intentioned enough. But really, I’m not very sure about that. When I first heard about this I thought this school district was just being overprotective of the kids’ physical safety. That they didn’t want the kids roughhousing or pushing each other into things.
But just like zero tolerance policies that teach children to be terrorized by the dreaded gun-shaped pop tart it’s really more about indoctrination. This report quotes the school district’s press release:
“The Mercer Island School District and school teams have recently revisited expectations for student behavior to address student safety. This means while at play, especially during recess and unstructured time, students are expected to keep their hands to themselves. The rationale behind this is to ensure the physical and emotional safety of all students.
“School staffs are working with students in the classroom to ensure that there are many alternative games available at recess and during unsupervised play, so that our kids can still have fun, be with their friends, move their bodies and give their brains a break.”
Ahh, the kids have to be protected from those wandering hands for their emotional well being.
Who knew? The game Tag was always part of the white male patriarchy’s scheme to victimize women via “rape culture.”
And they keep using the word unsupervised. I do not think the word means what they think it means.
Seems like they’re about as unsupervised during “unsupervised play” as prisoners having their yard period in a Supermax. These bureaucrats can’t even issue a press release about the game of tag without invoking Orwell.
Nope, I take it back. It’s not well-intentioned. I agree with Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit. It’s organized child abuse.
Paul in Boston Says:
October 26th, 2015 at 3:54 pm
Blert, cruise missles in 1962 is absolute nonsense. The technology just didn’t exist, not the global GPS system, nor the electronics to make it work.
The USN had been deploying cruise missiles from 1953 onwards.
The Soviets aped the USN. ALL of their first missile subs were exclusively for cruise missiles.
You are typical. You’ve forgotten// never heard of the earliest cruise missiles: Snark,(a failure) Regulus, ( deployed, USN 1953-64)
By 1962 it was universally assumed by the Pentagon// CIA that the Soviets HAD to have installed cruise missiles in Cuba. The Soviet navy was already building submarines to take them to sea.
And YES, the talking heads of 1962 did raise this threat as being the single worst possibility. Until assembled on the launcher, a Regulus type cruise missile fit inside any common tractor trailer rig.
Are cruise missiles scary ? When atomic weapons limitations began — the Soviets INSISTED that our cruise missiles would all have to go. They knew that such weapons were the perfect first strike weapon. The USN could launch them from the Arctic Ocean — and they would certainly elude the Soviet defense grid.
When the weapon is invisible, it need not be so fast.
The atomic tipped cruise missiles were not remotely as accurate as today’s stuff. But, their target would be a major city — and they could pack a mega-ton.
The way it would work: missiles are assembled and launched from Cuba.
Subs stationed north up the Atlantic provide ‘last turn’ course correction. The missiles would be ‘beam riders’ – old hat by 1960.
The most critical targets would be destroyed first: starting with the National Command Authority.
Now perhaps you can see why the Joint Chiefs wanted to invade Cuba.
The IRBMs would be used as a follow on wave… delayed long enough that our southern coastal defenses were destroyed.
That thinking was orthodox for the Pentagon back then.
You may argue that the Pentagon and CIA were wrong. However, neither institution was prepared to be optimistic.
Cruise missiles of that era used the same jet engines as the Mig 15 or F-86. (more or less) The airframes were pilot-less versions of those jets. The guidance packages needed to be only slightly more sophisticated than the V-1. These were BIG cruise missiles, many times the size of the Tomahawk.
If a Soviet sub surfaced off of Washington, a cruise missile could ride its highly directional beam all the way in, pivot, and ride it out again. A single sub could could handle a stream of cruise missiles… by using differing frequencies.
All of the above was so basic that it was imputed to the Soviets — automatically.
At the time, this extreme peril was not given a lot of air time. It was just too scary.
One commenter remarked that liberals have a duty to be reasonable and use their brains and stop indulging themselves as wonderful people because they have the right feelings. I expand the thought somewhat.
Why not apply “evil” to those who do not do their duty and who, thus, make things worse and worse for everybody?
When you note that it’s always somebody else who is going to pay–the early-release criminals aren’t going to be allowed in THEIR neighborhood–you have to wonder just how irrational they are. Their ideas look irrational and counterproductive but their methods of avoiding the outcomes look coldly rational, and as if they really do understand what will really happen. To somebody else, so it’s okay.
Not sure how innocently ignorant liberals really are.
Not sure how innocently ignorant liberals really are.
Example here.
Insane.
Focusing on making friends and influencing people in the insane asylum won’t get you far ….
“Outraged” at the cynical delivery, the violation of any respectable canons of just judgment, the casual viciousness, of a “friend”.
And it was triggered by one e-mail.
Seems she was well primed with her “retort” before you ever acted.
Which looks more like a conclusion already arrived at well before you ever spoke up.
What might have primed her pump so to speak? Something that you had earlier said or insinuated?
My guess is that it was what you had not said.
We hear a lot of talk about blank screens, and default assumptions of like-mindedness.
What we should hear more of is the negative option judgement. Guilty until proven innocent. Failure to denounce is evidence of guilt.
Perhaps she did not hear you denouncing those whom she and her more intimate friends, were in the habit of condemning.
Now whether or not this is the case with you, it has become clear to me that this moral methodology, which smacks stupefyingly of Stalinism, has gained many adherents in the US.
When it is pointed out to them, they complacently shrug. They are building the world they dream, after all. What’s it to you?
Steve57 – With all due respect, I didn’t see a charge of racism in that exchange in the Free Beacon article. Politicians work hard, but not as hard as farmhands. Fair enough. But not everyone who picked cotton was a slave, and not every slave picked cotton, and there was no mention of slavery. Did I miss something?
The Left has a hierarchy, and it’s not always about picking cotton farmhands or slaves. Once you are slotted in as a victim group, with your own slot, they now have you.
Their punching up and punching down in the chain is designed with a hierarchy in mind.
It reminds me of the rigidity of feudalism, actually, except with victim groups empowered to wage war and violence against every below them in the chain.
Frog, it’s a hybrid comparison I’ve seen before, the comparison of fanatics vs moderates in the Leftist death cult vs the Islamic Jihad.
They were both pro slavery and pro raiding cultures as well, in their day and in the modern setting as well.
The more people learn about why the Islamic Jihad should be hated and terminated, the more capable they are of seeing the Leftist alliance. The more they see the Leftist alliance for what they are, the easier the veil of Islamic illusion and Taqiyya is to pierce through.
Their ideas look irrational and counterproductive but their methods of avoiding the outcomes look coldly rational, and as if they really do understand what will really happen.
Richard A, that applies to the old Californian conduct of banning weapons so they raise the price of selling them to the mafia and to terrorists. As well as to the idea of “racial mixture”, which Democrat journalist communities and neighborhoods guarded by armed guards and gates/walls do not have. For example, Marin California vs Oakland.
If it was so great this diversity, why weren’t they the first ones to adopt it?
I probably have more liberal friends than conservatives. They are all good citizens and have a moral compass that most conservatives would share. But, we don’t talk politics very often.
When we do talk national politics, their attitude seems to be that anything a Democrat says is right, no matter what, and anything a Republican says is wrong, no matter what. In contrast, my conservative friends are highly critical of both parties.
I used to be a socialist. My parents were avowed socialists, with bookcases full of leftist tracts from the Fabian society, Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russel and the rest. I thought David Horowitz’s Penguin book excoriating the US role in the Vietnam War was absolutely correct. I recall saying, when I started out looking for a job, that I would only work for Government. Reality started to intrude when I found the career I wanted to pursue, computer programming, instead of statistics, was not possible for all sorts of stupid reasons.
So, I moved to the private sector and became a successful computer programmer. I retained my socialist beliefs, especially the idea that government was a benevolent entity that looked after everyone. Actually, I didn’t think about it too much. It was simply, Liberal good, Conservative bad.
Eventually, I became a shareholder in a software company. Our state elected a liberal government and they said they wanted to encourage the local software industry. My company, along with another company, submitted a proposal that made business sense. We lost to a bunch of insiders who celebrated by buying flash new cars and delivered nothing. I think that is when I figured out liberal politicians and policies were bad news. The government is incapable of picking winners or losers and shouldn’t be trying to do that. When it gets involved, it invites corruption.
So, why do our nice Liberal friends support horrendous leftist policies? Emotion. They only think emotionally. My wife had coffee with one of her old friends, a writer with a few credits to his name, and, in a discussion of world events, she described Islam as “a pre-enlightenment death cult”. Her friend had a fit of the vapors. He hyperventilated and nearly collapsed. He admitted he had no grasp of the facts, but he didn’t care.
I don’t know how you get through to people who live in these Liberal bubbles. You can’t puncture them; 9/11 didn’t do it. But, when the country is split between dreamers and realists, nothing good can come of it.
@Bev, amazing tale with THAT editor (ex friend)
sorry you had to endure it. But you re doing well to shun her, she’s a *toxic* person & being acquainted with her will just cause *stress*, raise your BP & heart rate & all your stress hormones & nibble away at your good health.
Quite cruel to accuse a *friend* of racism & insult her, all over their * could care less deity *
currently in the WH.
You can’t puncture them; 9/11 didn’t do it.
Whenever a zombie’s mental defenses crack and shatter, people around them help them by shielding them, being nice, and letting the zombies go back to the necromancer to regenerate.
That’s why you can’t puncture the armor. It is not sustained, 24/7, de brainwashing.
It’s thinking that just poking an alcoholic a few times will get them to change. They need to fall flat in life, face planted in the concrete, Over and Over and Over, until they get it. Until the pain triggers some self awareness and survival instincts.
He hyperventilated and nearly collapsed.
That was the sole moment of vulnerability for that zombie. The only chance to attack, attack, attack, and destroy his self identity. In a day, he will have regenerated with the help of his Masters, given new orders and directives that salves his guilt.
The only way to counter emotion is with emotion, fire with fire. Debate, arguments, and logick have no effect on the strength of the passions.
Quite cruel to accuse a *friend* of racism & insult her, all over their * could care less deity *
Molly, it isn’t as bad as Beverly’s personal trainer, who she had a contract with. That trainer was a pure vampire lord.
Good thing the contract should be over by now and Beverly would have been able to find a better trainer, a more sane one at least.
75% sure it was Beverly’s trainer, though.
@ymarsakar Now that is a Juxtaposition, you go to a PT to *improve* your health & all the while the guys attitude with you is *toxic* to your health !
I have an old acquaintance, currently just a Facebook “friend” with whom I don’t have direct interaction, who says things like “Obama is still black” to dismiss any identifiable group of people who view him unfavorably. I manage to ignore it, because it’s not directed at me personally, but I certainly would not preserve any connection at all with a person who did direct at me, as Bev’s friend did.
I’ve sometimes thought it better to laugh off that particular accusation, to treat it as the preposterous thing it is, in an effort to diminish its power. But it’s probably better to treat it as it’s intended, as an insult not to be tolerated.
Yep, the homo trainer was demanding that she “celebrate” his lifestyle or some such rot from England. Homo trainer felt “hurt” and “microaggressed”, thus started using verbal violence in “retaliation”.
I got my retaliation right here, it’s called a Japanese katana.
People have heard about the Palestinian terror stabbings. Good thing they have gun control over there, eh.
It takes a significant amount of Willpower to close the distance to an enemy and stab their organs out with a short knife. Compared to slash wounds, the killer is the stab, not the slash. The slash merely exsanguinates a target, with some unlikely critical shots to veins and arteries.
People may even have seen pictures of defensive slash wounds and what not.
Using a sword and a stable technique base, you won’t ever see pictures like that. The arm, the torso, and the head would fly off as if somebody amputated them. There would be no shallow or deep slash wounds.
The technique of a lunge attack puts 1-3 feet of steel into a person’s body, then the steel is jerked using the sword as leverage, up and down, in a circular fashion, to extend and enlarge the internal wound cavity, making it more comparable to a bullet exit wound. Then withdrawn, with the help of opening the wound to prevent being stuck in there.
The Willpower it takes to do such things is orders of magnitude greater than a person merely pulling a trigger from a distance. That is because normal humans tend to hesitate, they stop the neural impulses to the muscles, when doing hard work like that. They get tired, they flinch, they look away. All it takes is a flinch for a bullet to miss, but the physical attack of a knife or sword requires the muscle to Sustain Acceleration and Power. Sustained.
You pull back at the last second, and it will only result in “moderate” grazing injuries, not mortal ones. With a gun, you can kill yourself just by pointing it at yourself, no intent whatsoever, if the trigger is caught and triggered.
An elderly man was seen as entitled to have his case taken up by a proxy, in this case, a younger family member.
It’s not a proxy when it is two on one in an ambush and punishment attack.
It’s not a proxy because it wasn’t a duel.
Not sure what there is to argue about from your pov.
re: Beverly – I don’t know. My brother’s wife and my sister’s husband have a way of making every statement political without realizing they do it. Family dust-ups ensue, and both of them don’t understand why the other one attacked them. Like earlier in this thread, Steve referenced an article which conflated cotton-picking with slavery when it appeared unwarranted. We’re all just so tightly-wound about this stuff that we see offenses where they’re not there, and believe that we never give offense.
I think that C.S. Lewis described something like this in The Screwtape Letters, with a married couple who managed to give offense to each other constantly, in ways that each of them could assume that the other one was the guilty party.
To this original article: does it matter how one side diagnoses the other? Should we even be doing that? Where’s the payoff? If it provides insight that improves communication or persuasion, then it’s worth doing, but if it only results in anger and distancing, then we shouldn’t get caught up in it.
I’ll be back to read the comments later, but wanted to comment that I feel I have a target painted on my back as a conservative. If you look at the ramp up of the Rwanda ‘situation’, it started with dehumanizing name calling (cockroaches, etc). I feel like republican, conservative, tea party, etc are the same as kulak. It scares me, quite frankly.
I know this post is about ‘our side’ starting it, but I wonder if issues were to start now, how many of them would accept it due to the constant 2 minute hates? Far too many, I fear. Is it better to realize and accept that ahead of time?
Where’s the payoff?
RoE
then we shouldn’t get caught up in it.
Sitting on the fence won’t save you, Nick. You should have learned that by now.
I feel like republican, conservative, tea party, etc are the same as kulak. It scares me, quite frankly.
For warriors and people in the martial sub cultures of America, it makes them feel more alive than ever. Adrenaline and endorphine highs.
Nick said:
“Did I miss something?”
Yes, the reference to privilege. That’s why it’s wrong to refer to Paul Ryan as a “hard worker” per standard black and ethnic studies dogma.
His “relative privilege” as a straight white man, the highest you can get in the privilege pyramid, means he doesn’t know what it is like to work hard.
But I should have referred to what African American studies professors like MHP (when she was at Princeton) would refer to as the legacy of slavery, i.e. Jim Crow, along with slavery itself.
They either lack the courage to lead the life they preach or they lack the courage to preach the life they lead.
Just as socialism cannot stand on its own (one can’t use other peoples money without other people making or having money) their philosophy and their lifestyle is grounded in hypocrisy. Either they are not smart enough to recognize that or their self-loathing trumps their recognition of it.
I am reminded of Mrs. Banks’ big number in “Mary Poppins” about Sister Suffragettes. There was a line in it that goes “Though we adore men individually, we agree that as a group, they’re rather stupid.” And that’s how it is with liberals: talk to them about anything but politics, meet them one-on-one or in small groups, and they are just as nice as anyone else. Nearly all my neighbors are leftists, and I never discuss politics with them, and so I think they are ever so nice.
But it’s like this old PJ O’Rourke quote about Arabs: “One by one and man to man Arabs are the salt of the earth – generous, hospitable, brave, wise, and so forth. But get you in a pack and shove a Koran down your pants and you act like a footlocker full of glue-sniffing civet cats.”
Substitute the New York Times for the Koran and some different adjectives for “brave, wise,” and you have liberals.
Nick, this is the training the Navy is inflicting on its sailors. It’s very mainstream thinking in MHP’s world. It’s what she was clearly talking about.
The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute could have been plucked from any university gender and ethnic studies department.
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2014-01/deckplates-do-not-use-job
” Criticism of DEOMI last October involved a lesson on Power and Privilege, chapter EOAC-3000 of the Equal Opportunity Advisor Course student guide. The chapter emphasizes how “power and privilege can sometimes create exclusive work environments at the expense of others” and introduces students to the concept of white privilege. Two themes of that chapter deserve scrutiny. The first is that white males gain privileges and success through “unearned advantage.” The second is the assumption that “racism is everywhere.”
DEOMI defines white privilege as “the package of unearned advantages granted to those members of a diverse society with white skin.” Discussion of the concept explains that whites today benefit unfairly from historical institutional racism. By logical extension, that argument means whites–the text emphasizes white men–who achieve some level of status do so unfairly, suggesting their accomplishments are undeserved.
According to DEOMI, regardless of their socioeconomic starting point, intellectual capacity, or other factors affecting professional success, individual members of this group did not earn anything because they were unfairly advantaged by factors outside their control…
…According to DEOMI, we must assume racism is a daily occurrence in every facet of the military: our pay, promotion, and award systems; our selection of leaders; assignment of professionals; and virtually every other DOD program.
…This is also where students are instructed to “assume racism is everywhere” while also being told to “attack the source of power” as a strategy for combating racism. These are not lessons intended for training purposes only; they are meant to shape adviser behaviors. ”
Power and privilege go hand in hand per this nonsense. Specifically, the white power structure, the “source of the power” to be attacked, privileges whites, straight white men most of all. This is why she jumped on Alfonso Aguilar for calling Paul Ryan a hard worker. It isn’t just that he doesn’t do manual labor. In her world it is axiomatic that Nancy Pelosi had to work five times as hard to become speaker since as a white woman she is not as relatively privileged as Ryan, who as a white man really had the speakership just handed to him. A black man, twice as hard as Pelosi, a black woman four times as hard as Pelosi.
This is why I noted the almost identical, distorted reasoning that MHP and the VA shooter shared. And he didn’t get that out of thin air. Black/African American studies professors like MHP (she is still one such professor, being the founding director of the Anna Julia Cooper Project on Gender, Race, and Politics in the South at Wake Forest.
He was taught to see race everywhere, in every facet of his life. Which is why when someone said, “the reporter is is in the field” he immediately assumed that someone was making a racist comment about cotton fields.
Which is what the race, ethnicity, and gender professors like MHP, teach.
And I’m not making any of this up. It’s in official DoD training materials. And DEOMI isn’t getting their training materials from out of thin air. It’s in those materials because that is what race and gender studies professors like MHP teach.
By the way, to illustrate the dishonesty of what passes for a field of study, the title of the article comes from the warning at the beginning of the chapter on “power and privilege.” It warns the trainers DO NOT USE ON THE JOB. But then the chapter goes on to tell the instructors how to incorporate the material in their lesson plans.
They’re supposed to use it, they’re just not supposed to tell the students what it is they’re indoctrinating them in.
Looks like I left out a forward slash.
‘Fraid our side has lost much of its sense of humor. Rush has long enjoyed asking the rhetorical question:”When’s the last time you saw a Liberal with a sense of humor?”
Now, I’m sad to say, it can be applied to many of us conservatives. I mean…Donald Trump, for Godsakes..?? Really..? Seriously..?
Steve, I didn’t say that bad-faith accusations of racism don’t occur. I’ve been on the internet before arguing conservative positions, which means that I’ve been falsely accused of racism. I just don’t see it in this case.
Civil War (II) talk is wishful thinking for people who can’t see a way to make their preferred policy changes work in the current environment (this goes for the far left too–how ever will we ban all guns? Government Takeover!).
It became more pronounced in 2008 with the election–and then in 2012 when a lot of people believed that there was no way “their America” could re-elect Obama (this included Team Romney who believed the commonly used turn-out model was wrong–because ‘how could it be right??’).
It turned out that ‘Real America’ was just plain old America and didn’t actually ‘belong’ to anyone after all. So the Let It Burn / Make It Burn solution was the only forward a bunch of people saw (see defaulting on the national debt as conservative fiscal policy).
There won’t be a civil war because in the end almost nobody really wants one.
http://politicalomnivore.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-second-american-revolution.html
Omnivore. Nobody wanted one–presumably–in 1861. When in a grad class in the Sixties studying Africa, we pondered the question of why South Africa wasn’t in some kind of Viet Nam insurgency. As grad students studying South Africa, we were required to think of it as worse than Hell.
We discussed tribal conflicts. Lines of supply (from where, from whom), terrain, etc. I suggested that the folks figured things would be worse, would be miserable in a civil war, and they didn’t want to go there. The current situation wasn’t making them so miserable that a war might look like a good chance to improve things which, hypothetically, could hardly get worse. “They’ll have to be made miserable,” said one (black) student.
That’s one function of “sanctions”.
Palmer and Colton in a History of The Western World, observed that the reformer is the deadly enemy of the revolutionary.
Anyway, I hope you’re right.
Breivik may have been evil, but he was cagey. The two are not mutually exclusive, a scary thought. His target was a summer camp for kids of the left-wing political establishment. In other words, destroying the seed corn, going for the choke point. These were kids–mostly adolescents–who could be expected to take their parents’ lefty views and then be greased into the judiciary, journalism, politics, education, the national bureaucracy…. Given the small population of Norway, this was a terrific blow.
One problem with choke points is that they’re such attractive targets that we see them everywhere. Ball bearings. Ploesti. The Mohne dam(s). Railroad marshalling yards. The guns of Navarone. That’s why the book was so popular. Beats a novel of hopeless attrition.
You don’t need a civil war to have a lot of trouble when nutcases decide that, say, a Beslan will cause the uprising, which, of course, will go the required way.
I don’t think that Breivik’s main goal was to “take out the tree by the roots.” I read his whole freakin’ manifesto and it is totally clear that his primary goal was to spark a revolution. He even had, like, uniforms and stuff made up for it.
It didn’t work.
The too-much-to-lose argument, I think, stands though. Who do you envision blowing up dams (or whatever)? American Patriots? Leftists? People who reject Gay Marriage?
I think anyone who moves to blow up a dam will discredit their entire movement and turn the country against them–that will make any would-be revolution short-lived.
It’s like a 3rd Party vote: it sounds good if you can get past the hump of getting a significant minority on your side–but the pressures in play work against that.
Here was my piece on Breivik.
http://politicalomnivore.blogspot.com/2012/04/norway-shooter-behring-breivik.html
I’ve been on the internet before arguing conservative positions, which means that I’ve been falsely accused of racism.
There’s a difference between not wanting to see something and not realizing that Leftists have more advanced ways of attacking people with racism than internet comments.
There won’t be a civil war because in the end almost nobody really wants one.
Clueless analysts in 2012, 4+ years late to the party, are just wishfully thinking that, because they underestimate the Leftist alliance. Just as the Southern Democrats underestimated the power of the North and the core belief of abolitionists.
Some idiots thinking about the Revolution when they should have been studying Civil War I, also don’t have much to offer analytically speaking.
This is the kind of retard zombie clueless I’m talking about.
The government isn’t “in on it.” The government is struggling along like everyone else. If you think you need an armed revolution to roll back abortion rights or stop minorities from taking over with their affirmative actions and raaacist voting? You are the problem–not the United States and not your targets.
For those that wanted to skip to the end of that article to the executive summary.
As for right vs wrong, let’s just compared my personal authority and record vs omnivore’s, that would produce a clearer conclusion than some zombie facts from a zombie article.
Lerner walks and the gov isn’t in on it, hear that? Europe invades their own people to do Population Control and the gov isn’t in on it, hear that?
Waco 1 and Waco 2, and the gov wasn’t “in on it”, get over it.
Fast and Furious, get over it.
Planned Profit makes a few million every 1 million babies aborted and live organs harvested, get over it, this is the right of the fascist abortion companies. You’re going to tax fund it whether you like it or not, the gov isn’t in on it.
Pure zombie retard, cluelessness, and that’s me being gracious.
Here’s some more red meat for all you crazies out in crazy land. Don’t say I didn’t warn you, in fact I warned people before 2012 came around for the chairback pro Leftist analysts.
Why This Is B…S…: A lot of people believe this actually happened. It didn’t. Here’s why it won’t:
The same voting machine technology is not used across the nation. There are still paper-trails and normal ballots in many places. Sure: there might be some places where voter-fraud can (and does) happen–but it isn’t wide-spread and it can’t be. The margin of fraud has to be very close and the more these machines get used, the more scrutiny they will be under.
These secrets come out. If you think the press would hide this, you’ve bought in conspiracy theory land where the press is actively covering up Benghazi rather than, you know, investigating it as ABC and CNN did (Pajamas Media didn’t leak the information on it or the ambassador’s diary).
Welcome to conspiracy land Omni. Now begin arguing on your personal authority, for once, of what’s really going on.
Well, I think it’s pretty clear you think “there is a conspiracy” — a big one — and a tight one. That’s pretty much the definition of Conspiracy Theory Land–I don’t need personal authority to assert that.
Do you think there was wide-scale voting machine fraud in 2012? I can’t tell–but if you do, do you have evidence of that?
But what IS the conspiracy theory here? That leftist are going to seize power and turn the US into a police state in a flurry of door-to-door gun confiscations and UN camps?
Where did you come down on Jade Helm and tunnels under Walmart?
I don’t need personal authority to assert that.
Since you haven’t shown any, that’s a useful weakling excuse.
Just to be clear, Omni’s links are to his blog and all those in bold quotes are his actual thoughts, that he didn’t figure he needed to rewrite or cover up for the digestion of the audience here. Omni can complain about that if it is an inaccurate statement.
A Leftist operative and an informant to the SPLC like you, Omni, is going to talk about Jade Tunnels… my my. I wouldn’t recommend people trust these trash, they’ll send your location to the Left’s death squads as soon as the SPLC deposits the money.
https://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/anders-brevik-domestic-terrorist-or-freedom-fighter/
http://truthvoice.com/2015/05/waco-police-massacre-14-cops-officers-fired-thousands-of-rounds-on-200-bikers-killing-9-wounding-18/
This has gone far far beyond what your damage control, Omni, can set up. And it’s not something you can fool, not with these Eyes at least.
For your reading pleasure: my interview with James Tracey–the conspiracy theorist who believes Sandy Hook was a FEMA drill and that the Aurora movie theater shootings were done by the government.
http://politicalomnivore.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-omnivore-interviews-conspiracy.html
But I’m still not clear: Tunnels under Walmart? Yes or No?
Are you asking as an operative and informant for the SPLC, when you research these, in your view, nut sites, or are you asking on your personal authority?
As a Walmart worker.
It used to be ….
What will be: interrogation by three bagged harridans:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryYETmi9lNA
Thing is, the role of the womyn in our sorry state of affairs is still to be brought to the fore ….
I am sure I have no idea what a Walmart worker talking about Jade tunnels, is really asking about. You’ll have to explain all these “conspiracy theories” of yours first, Omni, since you have a much better grasp of it than anyone here.
Neo says someone claimed that,
Must have missed that. Following the link, I did not see it either.
However, in response to Stan’s very reasonable challenge to provide examples of morally principled liberals, or at least Democrats – since that is the best I could do – I have gone to the Wayback Machine and come up with two: Pat Caddell to some extent, and with less qualification, David Schippers.
But in general the attempt is more or less futile, even on Neo’s own assumption that the liberals she knows are just nice tenderhearted people whose main involvement is with their own lives and circles; and who see government as having an important role in alleviating “unnecessary suffering” ( I think the phrase goes).
This is because the moral sensibilities – the sense of what is and is not existentially critical in an associative sense – of the liberal are simply not the same as the moral sensibilities of the conservative or libertarian. They have a fundamentally different view of what constitutes a satisfying and worthwhile personal and social life.
Far from making social life impossible and provoking violence, this knowledge should aid rational people in voluntarily seeking affinity affiliations. And in a federal republic, as opposed to a consolidated national polity, this should not be too difficult.
But for some reason, this prospect, assortative affiliation, seems to upset liberals almost as much.
Oh–it’s this: http://politicalomnivore.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-horrible-secret-of-walmart-and-jade.html
The theory that Operation Jade Helm ’15 was a plot to take over America and move troops in using a massive tunnel network under Walmarts . . .
I’ll note that a link to the Jade Helm theory was linked from your blog comments–one of those links up there, I think.
I’m sure you would know much more about your own research and thoughts on this matter than whatever I may contribute in the form of a yes or no answer. It’s obvious, for whatever reasons and from whomever authorities you answer to, the subject is more important to you than to me, at least.
One of those links I just happened to find via google when looking for summations about the updated status of Waco 2? Sure. Certainly it’s not enough information to qualify as a yes or no, compared to your voluminous contributions on this subject at your blog and other spots, Omni.
I would also suggest the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
I would also suggest the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s redefining deviancy down:
The pedophile I could not help: He was not a monster or a molester. The system destroyed him anyway
But, ♫ duly ♪♪ noted. The impulse is♩ there, and it leads to something ♪ evil…♫
It used to be ….
Let it burn.
It used to be:
Das ist unsere Zukunft: video auf den Link
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10/germans-panic-as-muslims-march-through-city-this-is-our-future-video/
Lucky I have only a few years left … es war gut, wé¤hrend es dauerte.
I blame the womyn.
Nick said:
“Steve, I didn’t say that bad-faith accusations of racism don’t occur. I’ve been on the internet before arguing conservative positions, which means that I’ve been falsely accused of racism. I just don’t see it in this case.”
I think we’re talking past each other. MHP’s reference to “relative privilege” has a very specific meaning when used by academics like her. On the spectrum of human experience what matters is not the individual but what group you belong to, and how much privilege the societal power structure has assigned to your group.
So there is white privilege, male privilege, cisprivilege, able privilege (as opposed to the “differently abled”), and religious privilege. As a straight white Christian mam Ryan has worked for nothing. Or as Barack Obama would say, “you didn’t earn that.
This is the reason why I linked to the “Power and Privilege” training that the government is foisting on service members. That if you are a white man you didn’t achieve anything through your own hard work or merit.
T:
There used to be plenty of such liberals in government.
At one point some of them were even given a name: Scoop Jackson liberals. It used to be that it was not that hard to get bipartisan agreement on a host of things involving foreign policy, for example. Welfare reform under Clinton was another bipartisan issue. Going back further, it was Democrats who were instrumental in stopping FDR’s court-packing.
The purging of Lieberman from the party was a turning point that signaled dissent was no longer welcome. In recent years only a few Democrats have been allowed to leave the reservation, and only when it doesn’t matter because the party has the votes anyway (like Chuck Schumer being allowed to oppose the Iran deal).
However, when stan asked the question, I didn’t think he was referring to politicians, because we had been discussing rank and file liberals in the community who were friends of ours, not politicians or activists.
DNW:
If you read my post, I wrote that I had edited out the Breivik comment on the blog. So of course you can’t find it; it’s gone. I have also edited it out at other times when people have said similar things.
I edit out comments that are particularly offensive, not just on that subject. Trolls who come here to insult me, for example. You should see some of the things I’ve edited out over the years, and often banned the people saying them. If it’s a regular commenter, though (as with the Breivik comment) I usually don’t ban them unless they keep doing it after a warning.
Oh well, my mouse strikes again.
Anyway, Nick, there’s no need to scroll back up.
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2014-01/deckplates-do-not-use-job
“…DEOMI defines white privilege as “the package of unearned advantages granted to those members of a diverse society with white skin.”
…Teaching that an entire group succeeds only because of past conditions created by previous generations is unfair and disparaging of countless honorable professionals.”
What the author of this article doesn’t understand is that from the perspective of those at DEOMI, it’s not unfair. It’s just the author can’t see that because he’s blinded by his privilege.
Remember:
“The first is that white males gain privileges and success through “unearned advantage.” The second is the assumption that “racism is everywhere.”?
Since racism is everywhere, and white males are unfairly privileged by the power structure then:
1. Anytime a white male claims to be a victim of discrimination, that claim is always false.
2. Anytime a black man accuses a white man of discrimination that claim is always true.
By definition. Racism is everywhere,all the time. This is what MHP was talking about when she insisted on “contextualizing” the term “hard worker” according to the doctrine of “relative privilege.”
I mentioned the VA shooter because according to his defenders (and he has more than you think) he was victimized twice. First when his coworkers used racial slurs against him. They didn’t think they used racial slurs, but that’s “victim blaming” and only their white privilege blinds them to that fact. Second when they denied his claims of racial discrimination. They being the white power structure. They, like you couldn’t, see the discrimination and therefore they ruled it a false claim. But by definition it can’t be false.
You see the same dynamic on college campuses and the hysteria over “rape culture.” According to the feminists pushing this rape culture theory there women make no false accusations of rape. Never. Even questioning the accusation is “victim blaming.” Because of the relative privilege of the two, the woman is by definition correct when she claims to have been assaulted. If you can’t see this then your are blinded by your privilege.
MHP is still employed by Wake Forest University as a professor of gender and race. This is what race and gender professors teach. It is why MHP uses the language.
Please read the entire article at the link. I don’t believe of word of it but this is how the producers of the training materials this former Navy chief would dismiss his claims. It’s his privilege that blinds him to the truth.
Yes, I see. You allowed the commenter to remain but did erase the comment. Perhaps it was all trace of the comment. For example one can still see where my consignment of Lyndon Johnson, and his “knowing” supporters to the eternal flames was removed. But didn’t see any obvious signs like that either
On the subject itself: Anders Breivik is himself outside the moral pale. You would think that if he is willing to murder and die for a cause, he would be willing to attempt something less radical first. Maybe like getting involved in politics.
By the way, to say “let it burn” is not quite the same as to say “Let’s burn it down ourselves” or even “burn baby burn”.
It seems to me to instead be an emotionally distanced shrug, the end point of a long encounter with inescapable conclusions; an expression of exasperation and hand washing when it comes to trying to convince others not to place a noose around their necks and jump from the bridge.
Sort of like telling that drunk that is always threatening suicide, or the teen that revels in “sluttiness” to “Go ahead, have it your own way, I’m done with you for good.”
Some people believe, or profess to believe, that you have a never-ending and unconditional obligation to take an interest in and sacrifice for, the other.
And some people see such a notion for the masochistic insanity that it is. Because ultimately, investment in the lives and fates of such people is suicidal and itself immoral.
Omnivore.
If somebody blew up a dam he’d discredit his cause. All insurgents discredit their own causes, a couple of examples notwithstanding. Point is, since they’re organized and armed, it doesn’t make any difference. They may win or lose based on other issues, but not because they’ve disgusted the rest of the folks.
But who is “They” here? Who do we think is organized and armed?
DNW:
I don’t think your analogy works.
You write:
You’re describing a situation where the person shrugging is an onlooker. Except for the sentiment that “No man is an island…Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind…”, one can indeed wash one’s hands of the futile practice of convincing another person not to commit suicide.
The “let it burn” folks are suggesting we stand aside (and yes, some would even suggest we applaud, because some seem to say it with a certain amount of nihilist glee) as our entire country and all the principles we hold dear are undermined and destroyed. They believe that something better would take it’s place, but I think that’s in the realm of rainbow and unicorn thinking.
Well, not strictly. I assume that the exasperated one is an at least formally and formerly interested party, who has now realized that any substantive interest in trying to preserve the formal relation, is pointless.
That “sentiment” is a bit of poetic nonsense, not logic.
What principles is it that “we” supposedly hold dear and which would be lost in practice? The rule of law? The right of our representatives rather than the judiciary to make law? The impartial administration of justice? A personal freedom which presumes it to be the right of an individual to only be liable for his own “sins”?
There is no generalized “we” which endorses these things anymore. The individual shared responsibility mandate for example has made it “law” that your very life is now placed in the service of the autogenic and behavioral disorders of others. The very fact that you are alive, now makes you legally liable financially for the internal and self-generated problems that others have … or more precisely that these others – drunks, addicts, the mentally ill … are to themselves.
Obama says, “this is how we care for each other”.
I reply: there is no each other as you imagine it.
You might be right. But “better” seems not to be an uncontested notion.
It was an old saying that Texas was paradise for men and dogs, but hard on women and horses.
I guess it all depends on just how much of a slave you feel you can be and still satisfy your own needs in a way that makes associating with your present set of fellows, tolerable.
I think that liberals know that they want from others what others neither need nor want from them. And that this is the cause of much of their anger. That is why they are busy importing a replacement population.
Néo, meet Mrs. South!:
Women at Fort Boonesborough, 1775-1784
Meanwhile, back at the ranch ….
https://chrishanger.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/sjws-always-lie/
A couple of things VoxDay writes about in that book and his blog, concerns what to do when SJWs take over your organization. If you have the resource sand manpower, fight back and expel the SJWs. If you don’t, then leave the organization. Essentially let it burn, don’t waste any energy trying to save your reputation or the reputation of the organization no taken over by Leftists/SJWs.
This is, in fact, modeled on VoxDay’s own life, almost, as he got burned out of the SFWA, which coincidentally, actually freed him to fight back more effectively.
When applied against the American system, what “let it burn” ultimately represents is that the social contract normally protected Leftists. They have rights to self defense and rights to free speech due to the US Constitution and various amendments.
When reformists fail, that means a dividing line is setup, where the US Constitution doesn’t apply to the parasites and the wreckers. That the social compact no longer applies to people who are trying to wreck the compact and are oath breakers.
Humans are not equal, even if we assume everyone is entitled to that label.
That means if a PlannedProfit abortion fascist capitalist dies, it is very different than if a martial art instructor and self defense instructor responsible for helping to save lives, died.
Humanity is not “diminished” much by the Death of parasites and enemies of humanity.
Humans are not equal, even if we assume everyone is entitled to that label.
We have a serious human problem!
the-real-battle-in-which-we-are-continually-engaged
Yet no way to a common ground I am afraid.
The victims of Socialism had to drink to the bitter end ….