Understanding the Left

It does come to everyone who listens and watches – in this case, to Pete Kaliner:

I find myself at odds now with a lot of proponents of same sex marriage who appear to be walking the charred battlefield of the cultural war and shooting the wounded.

I apologize for thinking this was about only equal treatment under the law. I apologize for dismissing conservatives’ fears that this slippery slope would lead to de facto banishment from various sectors of the public square.

I thought people just wanted to be left alone. I was wrong.

For many, they wanted forced conversions.

As such, it’s only fair we ask where it ends.

Do read the whole article – there is a lot more, including a very insightful quote from Vaclav Havel about how people conform out of a desire to just “get along”, thus strengthening tyranny upon all.

As to the question of, “where it ends”: the answer to that is simple. It ends with the complete victory of one side, or the other. I’ve got a little bit of inside knowledge and thus I know that in the End, my side wins – but it is still my responsibility to try to avert as much trouble and suffering as I can in this world, and so I will still fight for my side, hoping that eventually a majority will understand the facts and allow the necessary reforms to preserve our civilization. But in that task one of the crucial things is for all those in favor of civilization to stand together.

We are in a titanic battle for our civilization, my friends. Pick your side. You can come up with lots of reasons to back this or that liberal ideal – but no matter what the alleged merits of a liberal ideal, the bottom line is that the left, itself, is under the thumb of oppressors. Junior-league Leninists I called them a number of years back…people who just yearn for the opportunity to smack a person down; to humiliate them and drive them off. These people are not in it for justice – they are in it for total domination.

UPDATE: Ace of Spades, who does understand the left, gets very angry:

…Unlike some other Dummies, I’m not really of a mind that we must all Follow the Same Rules and all Subscribe to the Same Bland, Grey, Dead Corporate-Friendly Culture in which no one is really religious or different or odd at all Because That’s Bad For Corporate Business.

I think people should have — and by God, do have — the right to be fairly different from one another.

That’s f***ing America.

Did you not know that? That {is} what America is?

That America is the right to be different from other people?

I don’t see why a store run by a pious conservative Muslim can’t demand that women be covered, if that’s his bag, nor why a store run by a pious conservative Catholic can’t also insist that women cover their shoulders, if that’s his sense of what his business should be, of what should happen on property he owns.

Will there be hurt feelings when some are turned away?


And who cares?

What the f*** are we, babies? Is this kindergarten, where everyone must be made to feel welcome, always?…

Do read the whole thing – be warned, though, of lots of NSFW language, but that is just Ace all over…and, hey, it takes all kinds to make a world, right?

You Can’t Have a Conversation With Lunatics

I’m not a fan of coffee. When camping I might have a cup, but the only time I drank it on anything like a regular basis was when I was in the Navy and it was the only caffeine readily available on the mid-watch (midnight for 4 am for you lubbers). So, when Starbucks announced they wanted their servers (I know they go by another name – but I refuse to call a server a fancy name – its like calling garbage men “sanitation engineers”; all work, if done for the Lord, is good…tacking a fancy name on it means you hate the job and have self-esteem issues) initiate a conversation on race with you after you dropped a fiver for a cup of Joe, I just didn’t care. But, my goodness, it turned out the idea was weapons-grade stupid.

Social media rather exploded – and things got so hot that the CEO of Starbucks actually deleted his Twitter account. He found, of course, that liberals were nasty and mean. This was not what he expected. The expectation was probably that Starbucks would get kudos from all and sundry, with everyone in the “conversation” proclaiming love and tolerance. Well, it doesn’t work that way – because modern liberalism is about hatred and intolerance.

I do realize why the CEO got it wrong – the upper class liberals he hangs out with are probably of the opinion that if we could just have a conversation about race then we bitter clingers in flyover country would finally stop being nasty racists and start to love President Obama, just as all good liberals do. We can rely on it that our principled opposition to Obama is not considered anything of the sort – we’re just junior-league Klansmen who hate Obama because he’s black…that is what has been endlessly drilled into the liberal mind; and it was especially drilled in during the 2012 campaign as Obama had no positive achievements to justify a second term. What the CEO was unaware of is that if you are using race-hatred to gin up electoral support for Obama on voting day, then what you actually get is a lot of people deeply infused with race-hatred. And that hatred will be directed at anyone who happens along who is white – even a white liberal who thinks he’s being helpful. We’re well past any point we can have a conversation on race in this country because liberals have arrived at the point where white people must (a) admit they are evil and (b) atone for their evil by grovelling. Somewhere out there in the Twitterverse is the opinion that even if your parents died at Auschwitz, you still have race-privilege you cracker bastard. This is the level of “discussion” on race – and the CEO of Starbucks just found this out.

The truth is, of course, that we can’t converse with liberals on anything – liberals have become so divorced from reality that conversation is impossible. And, indeed, liberals these days don’t really want a conversation. They want a surrender. Unless you are prepared to strike your colors (which, now that I think about it, may be considered by liberals to be a racist statement), there’s just nothing to be said. So, forget about conversation – lets just work on beating them electorally into the ground so we don’t have to deal with them any longer.

Republicans Write a Letter; Liberals Go Insane

Our liberals have insta-amended the Constitution – now, instead of treason being defined as adhering to America’s enemies or levying war against the United States, it is now defined as “writing a letter Obama doesn’t like”. Our liberals have gone very deep into Deal Leader devotion on this.

The letter, itself, is not much – just noting to Iran’s leadership that any deal made with President Obama will not be held binding on future American Presidents. That is just a statement of fact – because if Obama does get a treaty, then it is a dead letter unless ratified by the Senate, which simply will not happen. If Obama gets some sort of executive agreement, then it is something which has no force of law and the next President can ignore at will (and likely will ignore because no President – not even Hillary – is going to want to be bound by what Obama did 2009-2017). To me, this was a wise thing to do – we don’t want the Iranians thinking that the entirety of the United States is whatever Obama says it is – he’s gone in less than two years and other people in the United States have other ideas. Indeed, enough people have other ideas to ensure that no treaty negotiated by Obama regarding Iran’s nuclear program has any chance of ratification (this is because Obama’s ideas on how to deal with Iran are so mind-bogglingly stupid that even a lot of liberal Democrats won’t sign off on them). But, a lot of liberals are just beside themselves over the Republican letter.

It is best seen, so far, with the #47Traitors hashtag on Twitter. Yes, they are really calling the Republican signatories traitors! I guess their memories don’t stretch back even to 2007 when then-House Speaker Pelosi went to the Middle East in an essay of foreign policy in direct contravention of Bush Administration foreign policy. I won’t even bother with the Democrats’ 1984 “Dear Commandante” letter to the communist dictator of Nicaragua, nor Ted Kennedy trying to work with the Soviets to defeat Reagan in the 1984 election; anything prior to, say, 2000 is ancient history and not at all relevant.

What I think is making the liberals really mad here is that the letter exposes the hollowness of Obama. Obama cannot get anything concrete done – everything he does especially in his last two years is subject to immediate reversal by whomever takes over on January 20th, 2017. And, rely on it, a very large amount of Obama’s actions will be immediately undone after he leaves office. Why should any President – even a liberal President – just keep an Obama order alive? Out of respect for Obama? Please. Liberals are in a shrieking conniption fit because they just got told that their Dear Leader is actually not all-powerful.

INSANE UPDATE: Democrats start petition to jail the 47, get 140,000 signatures.

One of the Results of Ferguson: Worse Policing

Victor Davis Hansen notes:

…Will some law enforcement officials now surmise that it is wiser to ignore some crimes in the inner city on the practicable logic that the denouement for the officer will likely be negative — either by stopping the assailant through force or not stopping the assault and thus being assaulted?…

Why should a police officer even try? After all, if you’re policing a heavily minority area then any action you take may be construed as racist, and career-ending. Act or don’t act, and it can work out equally badly for you…so maybe just work your patrol route so that you just don’t go into certain areas where you suspect there will be a number of minority men who are up to no good. In other words, surrender part of the streets to them, because fighting them for control of the streets will still leave them in control and might get you fired and possibly sent to jail for civil rights violations.

As readers here know, I am in favor of very deep reforms to policing – but what we’re getting here now is the creation of “no go” areas of our cities. That, I think, is what the criminal element (ie, those who actually looted) want, and it is what the political element doesn’t care about (and, remember, most of the race-baiters live in carefully policed areas…safe and sound in their swell homes, free from any fear of criminal activity, it is easy for them to rabble rouse, knowing that the ill-effects won’t come back to haunt them).

We’re getting in to a very bizarre world here: a world in which lies triumph (only for the moment, of course) and those who are rational are hated. It could be a very bad few years coming up here.

Stupid Liberals

They are everywhere – a few examples:

The Obama administration is refusing to discuss reports that emerged early Thursday claiming that the White House is considering imposing sanctions on Israel for continuing construction on Jewish homes in Jerusalem.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf dodged several questions on Thursday when confronted with reports that the administration had held secret internal meetings to discuss taking action against Israel for its ongoing building in East Jerusalem…

And then this:

Rolling Stone has gotten a lot of publicity recently with a sensational article about a rape in 2012 at the University of Virginia, written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely and featuring some harrowing and disturbing details. The victim was identified only as “Jackie.”

Almost as soon as the story was published, doubts arose about its veracity, or at least about the journalistic standards of its author, who did not manage to interview the alleged perpetrators even though it would seem there were ways to have contacted them. Even worse, Erdely hasn’t been forthcoming about the extent of her efforts to find them, and did not include any mention of any of her efforts or failures in the article.

I’ve read many articles pro and con, including of course the original Rolling Stone piece in question (warning: it’s long), and I’ve got my own opinion, which is that not only did Erdely demonstrate abysmal journalistic standards, but that the story itself is quite possibly a fabrication by the alleged victim…

And then, this:

When asked about Mubarak’s exoneration, State Department Spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki offered a rambling non-answer which did not fool the diplomatic press corps one bit. When Associated Press reporter Matt Lee called Psaki out for essentially saying “nothing,” Psaki gave it another try.

“Generally, we continue to believe that upholding impartial standards of accountability will advance the political consensus on which Egypt’s long-term stability and economic growth depends,” she said. “I don’t have any more specifics on this.”…

And,finally, this:

But she also told the audience that the world still has a long way to go in terms women’s participation.

Of the hundreds of peace treaties signed since the early 1990s, between or within nations, she said fewer than 10 percent had any female negotiators and fewer than 3 percent had women as signatories.

“Is it any wonder that many of these agreements fail between [sic] a few years?” Clinton asked.

So, we’ll lift sanctions on Iran even though, as just one for-instance, they hang people for being gay, but we’ll mull placing sanctions on Israel because they’ll build a house. Meanwhile, over in race-and-gender-war-land, we’ll write an article full of details but won’t include any proof the event in question happened. Over at State we’ll mouth some meaningless words and at the end of the verbal spew which contained nothing specific, we’ll say we don’t have any further specifics (in defense of the State Department flack, she was later caught on a hot mike admitting that her statement was worthless). And to top it all off, we’ve got the putative next President of the United States asserting that only if a few more women had signed the treaties, wars and calamities would have been prevented.

Why, when Hillary made her absurd statement, did the audience not immediately laugh in scorn, walk out and announce their support for Elizabeth Warren in 2016? When the article for the Rolling Stone went up to the editors, why didn’t even one of them ask, “you got any facts to back this up?”. The reason for those two bits of stupidity – and all other liberal stupidity we see these says – is that they didn’t dare. You see, to hold Hillary in utter contempt for her stupid statement is forbidden to liberals – such an act would do the worst thing possible: confirm that the liberal narrative is wrong. Similarly, when the Rolling Stone story hit the editor’s desk, there was no chance such a question would be asked: merely to ask such a question would indicate a disbelief in liberal ideology about what goes on at elite universities vis a vis women.

If you ever thought that at some point liberals, as such, could become sensible then just give that thought up – the only way they can is by switching all the way over to conservative. To be a liberal in 2014 requires belief in not just a series of lies, but in a series of very stupid lies – and my guess is that the enforcers of thought on the left want it this way: the more absurd beliefs they can enforce, the more firm their control – after all, to switch from being liberal in 2014 not only requires you to change your beliefs, but to admit you believed things which anyone with an IQ of 80 could see were stupid lies. Just do the mental exercise yourself for a few minutes and think of all the admissions of being a sucker a liberal would have to make by switching to conservatism…and how much fear of humiliation that carries along with it. Better for most to just brazen it out: “Ok, so I believe a lot of stupid stuff: but I can’t admit it or I’ll have to admit I was a fool so I’ll just keep going! Hey, conservatives, if women signed treaties there would be less war!”.

To me, its all rather sad – and yet another reason to work hard to get these people away from the levers of power. Who knows what the opinion enforcers of the left will force their minions to believe next…

UPDATE: Huge amount of comment today around the interwebs regarding the Rolling Stone article…a bunch of “how could this have happened”. Seriously? People gotta ask how an MSM outfit could have allowed a falsehood to get published? Look, my friends, when it comes to reports which advance the liberal agenda – especially in areas of race, gender and class – assume every one of them is a lie…if not an outright fabrication, then at the least a severe twisting of the facts to fit the liberal narrative. Dishonesty in liberalism isn’t a bug, its a feature.

But, you say that you know honest liberals? Sure. Bet you do. But where the rubber hits the road, that won’t matter all that much. Think about it – you’re at the editorial meeting and the UVA story comes up for review. To question the story – which supports the liberal narrative – would be highly dangerous. Even if you proved to all and sundry that it shouldn’t be run, you’ll anger the more hard core leftists whom you work with – and who might have charge of your employment prospects. Meanwhile, if you let it all slide, 90%+ of the time no one is ever seriously called out for falsehoods. Much easier to go along to get along, even if you want to be honest…the hard core lefists didn’t care, don’t care and never will care if the UVA story is true: what matters to them is that it must be true because that is what leftism demands; even if the particular details of this story are false – even if you can never find an actual, demonstrable example of that sort of thing going on (and, remember, the contention of the story is that the horrific action described is endemic to the culture of UVA…that the student body of that school knowingly and callously does this horrible thing as if they believed it to be a good thing) – the overall story is true: because those who in any way adhere to any institution not on the side of the left are just like that in the view of the left…rat bastards who kill, steal, pollute and oppress just for the sheer fun of being evil. Anything which attacks non-left institutions is thus good and true, even if false in actual fact.

We Just Can’t Work With Liberals

Over at Free Beacon, Sonny Bunch notes a recent article by Jonathan Chait wherein Chait demonstrates his abiding hatred of all persons Republican. Meanwhile, we have the Gruber revelations that bald-faced lies were used to enact ObamaCare. The question I ask is: how can we work with people who hate us and will flat-out lie to us? The answer: we can’t.

This is not an argument to start lying, nor an argument to start hating. In fact, it is our duty to be more careful that what we say is true, and that how we say it betrays not the slightest hint of hatred towards the other side. But it is an argument that there is no common ground for us to meet the left upon. And, I think, we all know this – and have known it for a long time. Even on this little blog, we found over the years that we just couldn’t so much as discuss things with liberals, let alone hammer out some mutually acceptable course of action. Any time we got a liberal on here, the discussion would immediately be filled with falsehoods and invective from the left. Didn’t matter what the subject was, it always went that way (to be generous, some liberals spread lies out of ignorance – they might sincerely have thought their falsehoods true, but that still doesn’t change the fact that lies were being spread). This is because liberals hate us, and hold to a view which believes that a lie, if it is allegedly in the service of a greater good, is ok. As we are not liars and we believe that there are some things out of bounds no matter how allegedly worthy the desire, there is just no way to get together with such people. We’re oil and water.

We could endlessly discuss just why the liberals are like this – but it would be a bit pointless. Unless they decide to change, there’s nothing we can do about it. Other than oppose them with all our powers and, hopefully, eventually remove them from any position of influence or authority within our nation.

This won’t be quite a difficult as it might sound. While it appears that our liberals are ubiquitous, their real numbers are somewhere around a mere one in five Americans. They just appear very powerful because they own most of the societal megaphones – especially in the popular culture. But the real basis of their power is, ultimately, government – either directly or indirectly they live and die by government subsidy. Once we cut that out, they will whither and die. Governor Walker – intentionally or not – has shown the way in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has been a very reliably blue State for a long time – it was, after all, one of the States wherein the early 20th century Progressives had some of their greatest successes. But, lo and behold, Walker has won three times in the past four years…and the GOP strength in the State government has increased, to the point where even if Hillary wins in 2016, we might see that State going GOP at the Presidential level. What was the main thing Walker did? He went after the government unions – the primary mechanism whereby taxpayer money (ie, money which mostly belongs to centrists and conservatives) is funneled to liberals. Without that government money, the liberals were just unable to rule the political roost. Do this on a State-by-State level and the federal level, and you’ll see a collapse in liberal power: enough of a collapse, in my view, where we can over time completely rid ourselves of them (as an aside, another line of attack is on the student loan scam – this funnels mostly conservative and centrist money to colleges, almost all of which are completely owned by the left…I’d agree to an annulment of all college debts in return for a cancellation of the student loan program: it’d be worth it in the long run…imagine thousands of “studies” teachers and liberal apparatchiks in college Administrations suddenly out of work, and no longer able to funnel money to the left!).

But we can’t do this if we’re looking to “work across the aisle”. If we do that, we’re just allowing liberals to continue to force centrist and conservative America to fund them to our own detriment. Its not that we’re unwilling to compromise, but that we’re unwilling to commit suicide. Unless liberals change, we can’t work with them – and even if they announce a change, we can’t trust them because we know they lie about everything all the time. Our best course of action is just rigid opposition to whatever they propose combined with a forthright argument in favor of our own cause. Let the voters decide which way to go – but if they choose us, then let us go our way, right down the line. This is, after all, just what liberals do – you might recall the dearth of argument for compromise in late 2008 and early 2009. If liberals have the power, they do as they please; if they don’t have the power, they demand we do as they please. No more of that. If we win, we do our thing – if the people reject us at the next election, so be it. But I don’t think they will – no more than the people of Wisconsin rejected Walker. Most people, as I said, are centrists and conservatives and so a center-right governing philosophy will always command majority support as long as it implemented (when center-right governments start acting liberal, they lose).

We’ll see how the next two years go. I’m hopeful that even our more RINOish Congressional leaders have learned a bit of a lesson. The harsh invective and unconstitutional actions of Obama supported by Reid should have, it is hoped, opened a few eyes. These people on the left are serious – and they are hate filled and dishonest, into the bargain. Keep them at arms length and just keep on pushing a center-right agenda. Maybe we lose – and that is fine; at least we’ll have lost on principal. But I think we’ll win – and in 10 years, we just won’t have these liberals to deal with any longer…they’ll be out; out of government subsidies, out of power, out of any ability to use hatred and lies to advance their agenda. And that will be good for America – and good for them, as well: it might make them start to re-think their views.

Liberal Fascism Update

I wish I could say this is unbelievable, but its actually getting rather common:

The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.

“The city’s subpoena of sermons and other pastoral communications is both needless and unprecedented,” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Christina Holcomb said in a statement. “The city council and its attorneys are engaging in an inquisition designed to stifle any critique of its actions.”

ADF, a nationally-known law firm specializing in religious liberty cases, is representing five Houston pastors. They filed a motion in Harris County court to stop the subpoenas arguing they are “overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and vexatious.” …

Yeah, it is all that. What is at issue is an absurd law passed by the Houston City Council which opens all public restrooms to whoever – you know, feeling a little female today? Then go ahead into the ladies room. Stupid, politically-correct, liberal bull. But liberals know what they are doing – they are trying to criminalize non-liberalism. Rational people figure that it’d probably be best to keep men and women separate in the whole restroom experience, but liberals know that if the can make it illegal to be rational, they can then direct the power of government against reason (and, thus, against non-liberal thought and actions), and that is what they are doing here.

Of course the case will be decided on First Amendment issues – and I fully expect the pastors to prevail – but that isn’t the point. The point is to intimidate – while the pastors in this case won’t suffer legal consequences, all pastors – and, indeed, everyone who takes exception to liberalism – will be intimidated. Everyone has got a life to live and while we know what is good and true, if we’re to be hauled into court by liberal fascists every time we speak the truth, then maybe we should just not mention certain things? The territory of truth will be circumscribed and liberalism will have another area of total dominance, which is what the liberals want.

The cure for this is to pass laws making liberals – especially liberal office holders – responsible for their actions. It won’t do any good, really, to just get an injunction against the city council prohibiting them from taking punitive action against the pastors – the actual, individual liberals who are on the council and who took this action must feel pain for their action. It should be, in such cases, when a court finds the government body in error – that they have violated the rights of the citizens – then the members of that body have to pay, out of their own pockets, punitive, monetary damages to the citizens they oppressed. Make that city council member pony up $100,000.00 and future council members will think twice before they go along with this sort of thing.

We have to get a handle on this – liberals want an end to liberty. If we don’t punish them for trying, then they will just keep on trying.

Tell Them Lies…. Tell Them Lies…. Tell Them Lies….

Tell the people what they want to hear….

…in 2004 when Senator obame said encouraging words:

“There is not a liberal America and a conservative America. There is a United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America, a Latino America, an Asian America, There is a United States of America.”

he repeated this promise to unify us many times. After his Iowa caucus victory he said:

You [voters] said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and anger and pettiness that’s consumed Washington; to end the political strategy that’s been all about division. And instead make it about addition; to build a coalition for change that stretches through red states and blue states.”

We see this was another set of lies as he uttered statements as “get in their faces…”, “…ride in the back of the bus…” And proceed to divide us along racial, sexual, religious and political lines time and again. These lofty statements that had the mindless drones chanting “Yes we can” and “hope and change” to near orgasm and to some fainting orgasm.

…after the Democrats criticized Bush from going on vacation (to which the man took several “vacations” at his home in Texas) and after criticisms of playing golf (to which Bush NEVER played golf again while soldiers were in harm’s way), SENATOR obame gave the people what they wanted:

“The bargain that any president strikes with is, you give me this office and in turn my, fears, doubts, insecurities, foibles, need for sleep, family life, vacations, leisure is gone,” Obama said. “I am giving myself to you.”

Obama went on to say that “the American people should have no patience for what’s going on in your head because you’ve got a job to do” and that people should only run for president if they’re willing to make that sacrifice.


Let’s see… several vacations after still promising “I will not rest until…..” and over 150 rounds of golf while soldiers were put in harm’s way with strangled rules of engagement by this bungling idiot. Some sacrifice…. a look at the White House calendar shows obame’s typical day does not begin until 10:00 am. … some sacrifice.  Nothing should surprise anyone after the lies told during obamacare debate and the failed rollout.

Then the whopper Reid told a few weeks ago (give them what they want to hear):

“The border is secure.”

James O’Keefe proved that the progressives are lying through their teeth.  He snuck in from Mexico to the United States dressed as a terrorist.


Speaking of Reid, there are more than 300 bills (55 introduced by Democrats) that have passed the House and are waiting action in the Senate. Reid refuses to do anything with them, but yet obame and Reid say the Republicans are the obstructionists – and we have mindless drones who will regurgitate it without question – a few of them can be found at the other blog.


What we all knew about obamacare from the debate, the speeches, the passing and the rollout:

Barney Frank: “They Just Lied to People”

I am still waiting for my $2500 reduction and savings.

Clinton lowered the boom. Pointing out that obame’s “foreign policy” (I guess not having one is in effect a policy) is responsible for the rise of ISIS.  Definitely, the crisis in Iraq is his responsibility.  He pulled out before Iraq was ready so he could check the box next to that promise (again, tell them what they want to hear).  Now, innocent men, women and children are being murdered for their beliefs.   ISIS has told them to “convert or die”.  Their blood is on obame’s hands – and the sacrifices by our men and women in the military are now worthless.

Progressives – what a collection of worthless individuals.  To them, no sacrifice is too great as long as someone else does the sacrificing.


The Left Believes Immorality is Moral

Interesting bit over at Ace of Spades:

…The left does indeed engage in moral relativism– selectively.

For the enemies of America or Israel, or for the enemy of civilized, orderly society (say, the common street-murderer), the left does indeed engage in this analysis of moral relativism.

But what about for America itself, or Israel, or the family murdered by a “desperate” and poor lifelong criminal?

Does the left ever engage in the same moral relativistic thinking and say, of America, Israel, or a community outraged by murder, “Well, these people were scared. They felt as if they had no choice. Their anger can be excused and understood, and justified to some extent, because of the grievances they felt they had against their enemies.”

No– they do not. This moral relativism, the excusing and justifying of evil acts, is a one-way street only, only serving to apologize for people who kill Americans (or Westerners; the Israelis in this case are taken to be White Westerners)…

This has a lot of truth in it, but I don’t think it goes far enough.  For us on the right, we like to have a mindset that people are reasonably decent and want what is best – and to a certain extent, this mindset is true but for the left “what is best” is immoral. Until we understand that what the left wants is flat wrong in the sense of being immoral, we won’t really be able to get atop them and prevent their actions.

Continue reading

Intellectual Idiocy

Matt McCaffrey over at MisesEconomicBlog makes note of a common trait among our intellectuals:

…“For [a revolutionary] atmosphere to develop it is necessary that there be groups to whose interest it is to work up and organize resentment, to nurse it, to voice it and to lead it.” Enter the intellectuals.

The intellectuals are a paradoxical product of the market economy, because “unlike any other type of society, capitalism inevitably and by virtue of the very logic of its civilization creates, educates and subsidizes a vested interest in social unrest.” Like Hayek, Schumpeter described intellectuals broadly as “people who wield the power of the spoken and the written word.” More narrowly, “one of the touches that distinguish them from other people who do the same is the absence of direct responsibility for practical affairs.” That is, intellectuals do not participate in the market (at least not in the areas they write about), and do not generally rely on satisfying consumers to earn a living. Add to this their naturally critical attitude—which Schumpeter argues is the product of the essential rationality of the market economy—and it is easy to see why intellectuals would be hostile to the market.

In other words, intellectuals are often out of place in entrepreneurial societies. The growth of the intellectual class is not a response to consumer demand, but to the expansion of higher education. Passing through the higher education system does not necessarily confer valuable skills, but it often does convince graduates that work in the market is beneath them…

That is all very true, but I’d add something else to it: our intellectuals are, for the very largest part, amazingly un-intellectual. For people who pride themselves on an alleged ability to think, they don’t think about much – and this is mostly because they don’t know very much. Marx wrote a book about what the laboring class wants when he had never done a lick of laboring work in his life. Lenin wrote a book about the development of capitalism in Russia when he had never entered the marketplace, at all.  What on earth could such men think they were writing about?  It’d be like me trying to write an in depth, philosophical work about surgery. I might have some interesting comments to make on the subject, but to take me for an expert in it, no matter how much I claim to have thought about it, would be absurd. Unless you get out there and see how its done, you’ll never really know.

Continue reading