The Left Seeks One Thing: Power

  • by Gitabushi

There are always different ways to look at things.  You can look at things from a different angle or from a different paradigm.

Take the human body. A doctor learns many things about you by looking in your ears, throat, eyes, taking your blood pressure, blood sample, etc.

Or he could do a CAT scan or MRI.

Or he could consider your health from a system perspective: endocrine system, nervous system, vascular system, etc.

Or he could cut you into 1″ slices and learn from that perspective, but that’s usually only done to cadavers, in my experience.

So to understand the Left and how it acts in the US, there are different ways to look at it and attempt to understand it.

I could say “them”, but the Left does aspire to Borg-like levels of collectiveness.  And they do act as a group in a manner different than on the individual level, and I think it is useful, at times, to treat the Left as one entity.

So I can say that the Left is dened by its committed and earnest belief that everything in the world is Rule or Be Ruled, and they intend to Rule you.

I could note that the Left doesn’t believe in democracy at all, despite talking about it all the time, because to them, democracy is just a tool to get what they want.  This doesn’t contradict that they fervently want to enact a Rule or Be Ruled paradigm everywhere, it’s just a different aspect.

I could also say, as I do in the title, that “the Left seeks one thing: Power” and still be fully accurate.

Or I could point out what they want the power *for*.

The motivation for the Left wanting power is they want the power to avoid unwanted consequences and, whenever and where-ever possible, shift all negative consequences onto their enemies…which is anyone that doesn’t join their hive-mind collective.

See, the Left doesn’t like consequences, accountability, or democracy.  So they set up the CFPB to exist and act outside of federal control.  That way, their loyal Leftist CFPB director could punish capitalism, reduce freedom, and fund Leftist activities without any way a pesky GOP POTUS or Congress could do anything to even slow it down, much less stop it.  It is a travesty that it even existed this long, and it is a travesty that it isn’t a slam dunk the SCOTUS will strike this anti-democratic institution down.

The Left doesn’t want accountability for when its leaders engage in unethical or illegal behavior, but exploits its claims of love for democracy to protect its potential POTUS nominees.  Because Trump is automatically wrong and anything he does automatically violates norms and is impeachable, and the only thing that ever needs to be done is to figure out how to characterize his statements or actions in a way that proves his perfidy, even if it is exactly like what every other POTUS has done in office going back several decades.

We really need to crush the Left, because they are going over the Cliffs of Insanity and taking the nation with them.

maxresdefault

 

John Hayward Nails it Again

  • by Gitabushi

I recently realized that if I “logout” from the twitter page I had autoloaded upon opening my browser, I can go check certain accounts.

So there are a few I check on.  One is John Hayward.  I find his thoughts brilliant and insightful. Nearly every day he has a tweet-thread that makes me think, or states a non-obvious truth with more clarity than I’ve seen anywhere else, or both.

This is what I tried to do on Twitter, to varying levels of success.  That is what I am now trying to do here on the blog, and what I will try to do in my fiction writing.

However, this post is to call attention to John Hayward’s thread yesterday:

I find this whole thread completely correct.

The thing I wish he would have added (and I’m sure he would agree with) is that his thesis is fully demonstrated in the Democrat Party POTUS campaign, particularly in the debates.

Moderates are appalled by the blatant Leftist proclamations, while conservatives are chortling with glee as they plan meme and advertisement campaigns.  Both treat the open Leftist campaigning as some sort of Kinsleyan gaffe.

It isn’t.

This is the nature of politics today. They aren’t campaigning for voter support, much less grass roots support.  They are campaigning for donor support, and propaganda editorial support.

Trump winning was a victory for the Right in rolling back Obama’s transformation of the US, but it was also a victory for the Left in that it fully implemented their tribal allegiances and alliances.

They don’t have to convince Democrat voters. Democrat voters will vote for who they are told to vote for. They need to be chosen by the Elite. If chosen, the Elite will give them money (most of it skimmed from taxpayer-funded Leftist programs and insider trading from same) to broadcast propaganda, and the Leftist propaganda machine will have an easier time lying and distorting in their cause.

They don’t need to have a good plan or a good program, because their cause is just. They are opposing White Supremacists, Racists, Sexists, and Trump.

They are justified in subverting and betraying the Rule of Law, because Trump. They will get all the LIVs, all the GOP who hate Trump, all the Democrats who vote as they are told to keep the gravy flowing, and the Leftist bureaucrats will manufacture more Democrat voters from the illegal alien pipeline.

That’s why the Democrat POTUS campaign seems crazy.  They aren’t.  They just have their anti-democratic system fully up and running now.

An Idea Whose Time Has Come Again (Updated)

  • by Gitabushi

Conservatives and Patriots are in somewhat of an uncomfortable position right now.

John_Meintz,_punished_during_World_War_I_-_NARA_-_283633_-_restored

This tweet-thread explains a good portion of the discomfort, but not all of it.

The part it doesn’t cover is how everything seems to be all-or-nothing.  The military takes an oath to defend the US Constitution. Obama clearly violated the US Constitution when he deliberately attempted to legislate with EOs. He flatly stated he would act *because* the GOP-controlled Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted.

The military didn’t depose him.

Did every single military member violate their oath, then?

What was the military supposed to do?  Throw him out of office? Assassinate him?

Well, what is the military supposed to do when an unConstitutional law is written?  Attack the legislators who wrote it?  How would they even know a law is unConstitutional until/unless the Supreme Court strikes it down?

Bottom line: the US military has no role in determining what is or isn’t Constitutional. And there is no military role in resolving violations of the US Constitution.

But the same conundrum faces the citizenry, particularly now:

What are we supposed to do when the Elite violate the US Constitution with the Deep Coup? What are we supposed to do when the federal government bureaucracy has become politicized and uses tax dollars and federal government authority on behalf of one party to achieve goals of violating and reducing our individual liberty?

Normally, citizens are supposed to then participate in the political process, giving power to those who will use political means to punish the violators within the restrictions outlined in the US Constitution.  Except, what if the violations are machinations by political actors to suppress or ignore out participation in the political process?

What if the Supreme Court rules something Constitutional that is plainly *not* Constitutional?

The answer I’ve gotten before is basically: Revolution. The Roots of the Tree of Liberty needs some watering with the blood of tyrants.

But nobody is doing that, are they?  And if someone assassinated Rep. Nancy Pelosi tomorrow, they would be rightfully accused of and prosecuted for murder.

If the violations we’ve already endured are not enough to spur armed resistance, then what will be?

But if we don’t actually form a revolution, is it legal? Or is it just murder?  When does it stop being simple murder and start being an act of liberty?

I think most people are not acting because it is a really terrifying line to cross.  So we hesitate, hoping we can see some resolution without resorting to deadly violence.

While you mull that, I’d like to introduce another aspect:

I’ve often said that one of the problems of our society is it is no longer permissible to punch someone who is being a public jerk. No matter how much someone may deserve a punch, you risk being arrested and convicted of assault. Our society has become degenerate enough that if a guy openly flirts with your wife, and you punch him, you’re the one in the wrong.

But let’s say simple assault doesn’t get prosecuted. We let it go, so that direct responses to being a jerk can help make a more civil society. Would that happen?  Or would we just end up with stronger men having even more freedom to be jerks to everyone around them?

Enter the idea whose time has come again, I think.

macaronymaking.jpg

Tarring and feathering.

It does no real harm. It is uncomfortable, and a serious hassle for the person tarred and feathered. But it doesn’t scar, it doesn’t wound, and it serves as an excellent warning to other people doing things similar to the original tarring and feathering recipient.

It *is* an assault and battery, but it is done by a group. I can’t tar and feather Rep. Adam Schiff, but a couple dozen of us can.  If a couple dozen of us participate, it will be harder for Leftist authorities to prosecute.  The action gains some measure of appropriateness based on the fact that it is a form of democracy: it is citizens coming together to punish a politician for their political activity.

Even aside from the somewhat-dubious proposition that there would be some legal safety in numbers, I could handle a few months in jail for participating in the tarring and feathering of a politician. I could explain it to my family. I would not feel any shame or worry I had something actually wrong.

While I don’t want Lois Lerner to retain her pension, and would like to see her in jail, I would be somewhat mollified if she were tarred and feathered.

[Edited to add this paragraph:]

In contrast, murdering a politician is indefensible. You can try to claim it isn’t wrong due to Watering the Roots of the Tree of Liberty all you want, it is still *murder*.  It would risk decades in jail, possibly the rest of your life, with no guarantee it would have any effect at all in even slowing the Leftist destruction of US Rule of Law, much less reversing it. No wonder everyone just sits around talking about revolution, but no one does anything.

There is a significant drawback/downside, however. The Left loves collective action, and they are copycats. They already try to intimidate GOP politicians through threatening actions. They’ve driven Ted Cruz out of a restaurant and threatened Mitch McConnell. If tarring and feathering comes back in vogue, the Left would attempt to tar and feather conservative politicians for actually following the Constitution.

There should be a way to resolve or prevent this.  One thing that comes to mind is that the Left has no sense of proportion or patience. They wouldn’t have the capability of organizing a relatively non-violent tarring and feathering, they would include actual criminal behavior of beating, and maybe even lynching.

However, while I don’t want to encourage the Left to copycat escalation into harming GOP politicians, I am also not responsible for their actions and immaturity. It would be easy to legalize tarring and feathering while still coming down harshly on anyone who went beyond that, and that would mean prosecuting Leftists almost exclusively.

Or maybe that’s idealist wishcasting.

Thoughts?

 

 

A Few Uncomfortable (Pithy) Truths

  • by Gitabushi

Happy, confident people don’t vote Democrat.

Developments that are good for Democrats’ electoral prospects are bad for the bulk of US citizens.

To the US Left, “democracy” is getting what they want, and any obstacle to what they want is an attack on “their” democracy.

The Left intends to decide for you what you want, in all things, forever.

 

Got any more?

Without Evidence

  • by Gitabushi

One of the most remarkable developments of Trump-era news media is the “Without Evidence” editorializing.

That’s a new one.

I’m sure you’re all familiar with some of the traditional ways Leftist journalists editorialize in ostensibly objective new items:

“Some say” = “the report wants to level personal criticism”
“This comes at a time when” = “when the reporter would rather talk about a different issue that hurts the politician in question”

This “without evidence” makes for a very clunky chyron or title, but the MSM is willing to make that sacrifice to prepare the rhetorical battlespace against Trump.

The formulation is pretty much always “Trump claims, without evidence, _____”.

I have never seen them use this for another POTUS before.

“Obama claims, without evidence, that the police acted stupidly.”
“Obama claims, without evidence, that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”
“Obama claims, without evidence, that his administration investigated the IRS and found no wrongdoing.”
“Obama claims, without evidence, that his administration was free of scandals.”
“Clinton claims, without evidence, he feels our pain.”
“Clinton claims, without evidence, that he did not have sex with that woman. Monica Lewinsky.”

See, a journalist or news organization with integrity might try to actually find what evidence Trump has to claim what he’s claiming.

But the Leftist news industry cannot accept that Trump might be correct about anything.

So they go about beclowning themselves with making every news item an editorial of how bad the orange man is.

article-3314-1
From the Babylon Bee article “CNN unveils new slogan”: https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-unveils-new-slogan-orange-man-bad

What are you favorite Leftist MSM weasel-ish editorial phrases?

 

related:

Fatal Flaws of Socialism

  • By Gitabushi

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you probably reject Socialism.  You know it doesn’t work, you know it has never worked everywhere it’s been tried, and you know that as soon as it fails, it is deemed “Not *real* Socialism” so the True Believers can retain their dreams of a successful implementation, someday, somewhere.

But because we know Socialism doesn’t work, we often take it as an axiom, and we don’t look deeper.  However, in the marketplace of ideas, we must constantly hone and refine our ideas. We must put these ideas out there for the unconvinced and unpersuaded to see and evaluate.  If we never argue against Socialism, we increase the chance that a younger generation will fall sway to its siren call.

construction destruction power steel
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Here, then, are some of the arguments I’ve seen for Socialism, and my debunking response.

Selfishness:

Under quasi-Free Market Capitalism (or the Current System, to whatever degree of Free Market Capitalism we have), the rich are encouraged and allowed to be selfish, rather than sharing their wealth with the poor.

Response:

Accepting for the sake of argument that rich people are motivated by selfishness to use their skills to exploit others, adopting a Socialist system doesn’t change human nature. Selfish people with ability will figure out what it takes to be promoted to positions of power within the Socialist government structure and use their position to ensure they get the best food, best clothes, best living spaces, etc.

This plays out a number of different ways.

  1. Socialist leaders must be compensated better than average, or else they might be susceptible to bribery.
  2. When everyone is equal, the Socialist leaders would be swamped with petitions unless there is some method of gatekeeping, which often takes the form of “gifts”, i.e., bribes
  3. Playing games with “equal”. If everyone gets a pound of meat, the Socialist leaders get the pound of filet mignon, the peasants get a pound of Spam.  If everyone gets 2000 sq ft of living space, the Socialist leaders will get the Manhattan penthouse, the peasants will get an unheated hovel in Alaska, or an un-cooled tenement in Houston, Texas

Democratic Socialism:

The argument is that Socialism has always failed because it was authoritarian socialism, imposed by force.  Democratic Socialism will come into being via Democracy, and being voluntary, will actually work.

Response:

Has there ever been anything in the history of the US that has had 100% agreement?  One representative (from Montana, alas) voted against declaring war for the US entry into WWII.

Some people are always contrary. Some people will choose to go against the tide *because* it is against the tide.

Socialism is based on the principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  There are no exceptions allowed.  Socialism requires *everyone* to be on board to work.

And universality really is a foundational concept for Socialism.  If people could opt out of the supplying part, well, what stops people from giving according to their ability now?  Is there some magic spell that makes people more generous if the society adopts formal Socialism?  So why would you even need to vote it into place?  If Socialism is a great idea, convince people ot give up their wealth now, voluntarily, in a charity system.  Make virtual Socialism.

If you can’t, then you can’t make it work in a government, either, without force.

Nepotism:

Socialists complain that the wealth gets locked up in a rich class, where the parents pass on wealth to their children, who use that wealth to maintain their position, locking out the poor. They own the houses that the poor must rent, they own the businesses and factories where the poor work, and they can skim off the top without working.

Response:

Again, human nature doesn’t change.  One of the main motivations for people to work is to give their children advantages. In a Socialist system, there may not be wealth to pass on to children, but the children of the Socialist leaders will go to the best schools, where the best teachers are assigned. The children of the Socialist leaders will have the best opportunities to excel in competitions and events. The competitions and contests may even be adjudicated in favor of the children of Socialist leaders (to curry favor). But as sure as the sun rises, there will be a class system where the children of Socialist leaders do not have to work in factories or in the fields, but the children of factory and field workers will have no chance to enter the Socialist leadership.  It will be systematic nepotism, rather than the conditional nepotism of our quasi-Free Market Capitalism system. There is some economic mobility in our current system.  Less than a few decades ago, but the Elite Coastal Democrat class has gotten itself more entrenched since the boom of the 50s and 60s has faded.

Equality/Fairness:

Under Socialism, everyone will be equal, and everything will be fair.  We’ll get Socialism when we achieve a post-scarcity society, like when almost all occupations are filled by robots and AI software.

Response:

Humans will never be equal, and things will never be fair to satisfy everyone. Human nature is such that we always overestimate our own contributions, underestimate the efforts and contributions of others, and underestimate how much trouble we cause other people.

Aside from that, responsibility varies from individual to individual.

The basic concept of Socialism is to ensure that no one starves, no one goes without housing, no one goes without clothes and other basic necessities.

Consider an analogy: Assume that by law, every child deserves a stuffed animal or an action figure.

Child One wants stuffed animals. That child cares for the stuffed animal, sleeps with it, protects it from harm.

Child Two wants action figures.  But the action figure is put through the wringer, its arms ripped off, its accessories chewed on, and it is ruined within a month. So you provide another one. Rapidly ruined. You provide another one. This goes on and on.

Child Three doesn’t want a stuffed animal *or* an action figure, but rather a fire truck.  Too bad.

This is all neither fair, nor equal. You put a dozen times the resources into Child Two. Is that fair? Child Three doesn’t get its preferred toy. Is that equal?

This is the same argument against providing a Universal Basic Income sufficient to house and feed everyone.  What if individuals use the money for something else besides food and housing? Well, then you have to give them additional money for food and housing.  What if they *still* don’t use the additional money for food and housing?

So you don’t provide UBI, you provide food and housing.  We’ve seen this with food stamps: an economy develops where people sell their food stamps for pennies on the dollar to buy other things.  Then they still starve and activists hold them up as examples of our unfair society.  Or the amount given via food stamps gets to the point that the people on welfare eat better than the lower levels of working classes.

The problem is that once you *guarantee* a certain benefit, or a certain amount of money, you run up against the perversity, selfishness, and exploitive nature of human beings.

The weakness of Socialism is that it is a system, and humans will always exploit any system to extinction.

 

These are some of the fatal flaws of Socialism.  Add more in the comments section.

 

 

Big Mother

Julia sank wearily down into the deep cushions of the staff lounge couch. The TV was on, set to some new reality show where politicians cooked meals for celebrities, but Julia hardly noticed. She was still processing.

A grueling, 36 hour labor. Normally a C-section would have been in order, but the patient refused to be cut. And at the end of it all…

Her eyes flicked up to the door. She could still hear the baby crying, though she knew it was just in her head. The Repose Room was soundproof.

Shaking her head as if to expel such thoughts, she looked down at the coffee table. The various sections of Today’s USA were scattered across its surface. The top-most, “Health and Living,” prominently displayed an article titled “New Healthcare Law Protects the Most Vulnerable.” Her eyes scanned the text; apparently it was a story about how the newly expanded universal healthcare system would greatly improve the lives of underpaid journalists.

Julia heaved a heavy sigh and buried her face in her hands. She had known that remaining in perinatal medicine would eventually test who she was. She just hadn’t expected it to happen so soon. Not here. Not at St. Agnes.

But they had allowed it to happen. Jennifer and the doctor spoke for a few minutes, in private, with the patient. And then the baby was wheeled out to the Repose Room.

Julia imagined her own daughter lying in the darkness, alone, left to expire. It was too much. The shock and confusion were gone, replaced by anger and determination.

She pulled herself up and hurried out of the staff room.

Kathy was leaning against the wall next to the Repose Room and nursing a cup of coffee while fiddling with her phone. The healthcare liaison looked up at Julia’s approach and smiled plastically.

“Hi, Julie. Are you okay?”

“No. Nothing about this is okay.”

Kathy reached for Julia’s arm, halting her entrance. She lowered her voice to a hush.

“Look, I know this is difficult. But we have to respect the mother’s choice.”

Julia shook off the restraining hand and entered the room. It was complete dark inside. The baby was no longer crying, but Julia could hear a soft whimpering. She paused as the door closed behind her and Kathy’s surprised exclamation was cut off.

She reached for her phone and unlocked the screen, using the light to look around the bare room. A sink and cabinet fixture was set against the wall – the same one found in nearly every modern examination room. In the corner opposite her stood the bassinet, mounted atop a sterile, steel cart. The baby lay swaddled inside.

As she stepped toward the infant, the door opened behind her and in stepped Kathy, accompanied by Jennifer, the shift supervisor.

“Julie, what are you doing? You shouldn’t be in here,” the senior nurse admonished softly, frowning. She reached into a pocket and drew out her own phone to further illuminate the dark room. Her other arm cradled a clipboard – clearly she had been interrupted while doing important paperwork.

“This isn’t right, Jen. We can’t do this.”

Jennifer’s face softened. It was Kathy who replied.

“It was Mrs. Peters’ decision after speaking with Dr. Danton. Even Mr. Peters agreed. It’s her right. Come on now, everything is going to be all right. Let’s just…leave it alone.”

“Not it, Kathy. Her. You want to let her die!” Julia had difficulty controlling her voice now, and the baby started to whimper loudly.

“It’s not up to me,” Kathy answered. “And it’s not up to you. The infant simply isn’t viable.”

“What the hell do you mean she isn’t viable? She’s laying there right now, breathing on her own. Alive.”

Jennifer cut in. “What Kathy means is the baby can’t survive on her own, without state resources. You know that. She’d have to be put up, and that’s expensive. And there will be no legal parents to put up climate credits…I don’t like it any more than you do, but there’s nothing we can do.”

“For God’s sake, she’s perfectly healthy, Jen!” Julia was practically shouting.

Kathy answered “It’s an unfortunate rarity, but post-birth abor-”

“Don’t call it that,” Julia snapped. “We’re letting a healthy baby die. And for what? Why? Why are they doing this?”

Jennifer and Kathy exchanged an uncomfortable glance and the former answered “Her eyes.”

“What? What about her eyes?” Julia asked.

“The Peters ordered blue eyes, but the baby’s are brown. It’s not what they paid for. Mrs. Peters said that she always wanted a daughter with blue eyes and blond hair, like a doll. She said that…that having to raise a botched child would be too traumatic for her,” Jennifer muttered.

Julia shook her head in disbelief. They were all silent for a moment.

“I’m taking her,” she said finally.

Jennifer’s eyes widened in surprise. Kathy looked scandalized.

“You can’t do that, Julie. It’s illegal!” the liaison exclaimed.

“Think about this,” cautioned the supervisor. “They’ll fire you. Hell, you’ll probably go to jail.”

“I don’t care,” replied Julia. “I can’t do nothing.”

Kathy glared angrily at her, looked meaningfully at Jennifer, and then exited the Repose Room quickly.

“All right,” said Jennifer. “But you’d better hurry. No doubt Kathy has gone for security.” Jennifer, too, stepped out.

Julia switched off her phone and flicked on the room’s fluorescent light. The baby girl squinted and began once again to cry.

 

-Bushi

bushi