After this debate… I got very angry. You lost. I’m going to put that out there, and be 100% honest. You got your ass handed to you. Oh, early on you had some good zingers. The first quarter, so to speak, saw you score with such notables as “so if it’s not your fault, is it Obama’s fault?” Good. That’s classic Trump, and we wanted to see more of this. But then you went off on rambling tangents nobody cared about. So the rest of the game was Hillary’s. Being honest, I don’t like either of you, but in the interests of not having Hillary, I’m going to calm down and attempt to provide you with some rational advice, on the off chance somebody in your campaign reads this shit.
Look, I’m not a member of the high falutin’ elites club, and honestly I’m no master debater. So yeah, take it with a grain of salt. But here was your problem from an armchair general’s perspective:
Hillary is a liar. Whatever she says, it’s a lie. Whenever she opens her mouth, she is lying. Say that. Don’t get defensive. Don’t ramble on about how great your company is, or how awesome you are as a person, or anything else. Say, point blank, that she is lying. Furthermore, if she accuses you of hiding tax returns, don’t defend. Accuse her (truthfully) of hiding all sorts of shit, from Clinton Foundation money, to burying her email server scandal, and Benghazi. There is such a wealth of lying corruption with the Clintons. Choose anything.
In fact, if you started from the assumption that everything in the world was the exact opposite of what Hillary said it was, you’d be in a better position than you were tonight.
But above all that, you need to study. Yes. Study. You made billions of dollars, and I suppose you must therefore be a smart man, for I certainly have not made billions. Okay. When you do a deal with someone, when you build a condo tower, or drop in a casino, you research the deal, right? Numbers. Location. Who you’re negotiating with. Etc… That way you have the facts on hand when you’re doing the negotiation. So where were your facts tonight?
Yes, we know the NAFTA deal was bad. But why was it bad? We know the Iran deal was garbage, but explain the reasons behind it. The only time you did this right was when you talked about ISIS. You clearly looked into ISIS, and Hillary’s contribution to its formation. You scored a good point here, and you could have recovered if you stayed on message. Study for the test, Donald.
Yes, we know that Hillary is fake, and that she has these talking points memorized. But in so doing, she puts on a better show for the idiots who don’t know her for the lying hag she is. And people like me, Donald, we’re reluctant Trumpites. Many of us didn’t get on this train by choice, excepting that Hillary was running the only other game in town, and we certainly didn’t want go down those tracks. You will talk us out of voting for you with more of this.
You won the primaries for a few reasons. The first reason is that celebrity status attracts people in large numbers. I mean, there has to be some kind of reason people watch the Kardashians. It’s certainly not for their prodigious helping of talent. Arnold got his sweet little gig in California by riding the “I’m the governator” bit to its inevitable conclusion. And the less said of Jesse Ventura, the better (don’t look to him for a good example, please). But for the low information voter, this is your ticket in.
The second reason is because of your one great redeeming quality: you’re not politically correct. If someone lies, you call them a liar. If someone is an asshole, you call them an asshole. In this respect, America is like a man dying of thirst in the Sahara, who suddenly stumbles on a well of water. No matter how badly contaminated with filth that well may be, the thirsty man desires it with all of his heart. So be that, Donald. Call Hillary a lying bitch on stage. I’m being serious. Call Obama the worst disaster for race relations this country has seen since the Jim Crow era (and probably worse than that, honestly). Hit repeatedly on ISIS and Benghazi. And for all that is holy, if she mentions cyber security, talk about her email server. Clearly someone who can’t figure out why dumping classified information on her private email server is a bad idea isn’t qualified to say anything on cyber security. The thirsty man will overlook any of your other faults, then, and drink from the well. And you’ll be President.
Don’t do this again. I’m pleading with you, Donald. I know, I know. I’ve said a lot of bad things about you. And to be honest, I really don’t like you. But I don’t have to like you, and you don’t have to like me. None of us have to be enamored with one another. God knows my libertarian instincts come into conflict with many others on the Right all the time. All we need to do right now is make common cause against a common enemy: Hillary, SJWs, and other assorted radical progressives. I don’t expect to like you, I just want you to beat Hillary.
Go study. You are right on many issues (you’re wrong on others, but not ones I particularly care about right now). But you need to be able to show knowledge and understanding. Don’t use a script like Hillary did. Instead, memorize key facts, and when she runs afoul of them as she inevitably will (she’s a liar, remember), you point them out, and then call her a liar. That’s it.
So please, go back, study the facts, and come to the next one better armed, okay? You’ve seen how Hillary “debates” (she doesn’t, she just recycles a script). So now learn how to defeat it.
Back in preschool daycare, there was a phenomenon I remember which most folks can probably relate to. Tattling was a tactical move which could either confer status upon you, or take it away. Deep down, nobody liked a tattletale, but kids often feared him and pretended to like him when the teachers were around, so as to avoid punishment. There was always a kid who would tattle frequently, even inventing stories out of whole cloth. And the teachers often liked this kid, because it appeared that he made their jobs easier by policing the other kids for them.
Of course, when the teachers were not there to watch, there was an entirely different opinion of the tattletale. An opinion that, frequently enough, turned violent. But even this played into the sanctified victimhood of the tattletale. He thought himself persecuted by the other kids, and this only enhanced his desire for vengeance through the administration. And so many children separated into two groups of deceivers, both of whom pretended to be paragons of virtue in front of authority figures. They were the tattlers and the bullies. But both may be thought of bullies, just one of a more physical sort, and another of a more mental or emotional sort. In the tradition of Lord of the Flies, this feature persists throughout childhood, but ought to be effectively resisted by thinking adults.
Yet here it is, in 2016, and the same two groups persist into the adult world. We see the tattlers in the form of Social Justice Warriors, radical feminists, and other assorted Leftist “intellectuals”. And coextensive with them we find the physical bullies in the form of Black Lives Matter protesters, criminals who use ethnicity as a shield for their behavior, and others of their like. Observe here:
The infantile nature of the Left is fast becoming quite transparent. The emotional bullies become proxy stooges for the Establishment, claiming to be victims of whatever group is currently resisting the activities and desires of the power brokers. It’s funny how many radical feminists claim to be victims of white male violence in some form or another, and yet the group that is most obviously physical in their criminal activities certainly isn’t straight white guys.
As in preschool, a sort of understanding has taken place, wherein the emotional bullies and the physical bullies have, at least for the time being, joined forces to extract as much lunch money from the rest of us as possible. And we cannot go to the authorities, for the stooges have Establishment support. And we cannot fight back effectively without those very same stooges telling on us for daring to have the temerity to resist our fleecing.
In this day and age, the appearance of victimhood has become a coin unto itself. As long as you can cloak yourself under its protections, you can steal, loot, burn, pillage, and rape, and excuses will be made for your behavior. And so being a “victim” grants prestige and power. Just as us capitalists are inventive in our search for profit, so are these people ever more creative in inventing new methods of gaining victim status.
Browsing around Twitter today, I encountered this picture from @AuditTheMedia:
A debate as sexual violence, requiring a trigger warning…
Yes, merely by watching a debate, freely, of your own choosing, you can be granted victim status. Perhaps you will go to the counselor, and the call the sexual assault hotline. You might write a book about your PTSD, and the suffering the evil Trumpites have done to you by merely existing. And then you can go onto social media and call for the death of all white men, and nobody bats an eyelash, because you are a victim and have your ironclad documentation thereof. Bottles of antidepressants, counseling receipts, fake death threats, and sad photographs all serve as proofs. Skin color and genitalia likewise confer benefits. And it is even possible to gain them without having the requisite genitals or skin color. You merely claim transgender status, or pull a stunt like Shaun King, and invent your blackness out of whole cloth.
Anyway, once your proofs are established, you get to exercise power as an agent of the power brokers, like the tattletale in preschool. Did someone look at you funny? Time to tell on them, get the fired from their job, attack their businesses, or whatever. With the rise of the Microaggression concept, anything can be grounds for telling on someone. What constitutes criminal offense is entirely in the hands of the empowered accuser. If necessary, the story may be bolstered by fake death threats, racist text messages sent by their own, or even poop swastikas plastered on a bathroom wall by parties unknown.
Meanwhile the physical bullies have realized that they can exercise the same power, and escape justice, by cloaking their own behavior under the same proofs. If one of their own is punished for his behavior (even in a case of suicide-by-cop), that is merely an excuse for the rest of them to flex their muscle. For now, the two types of bullies have a sort of fragile truce in order to loot the rest of us as efficiently as possible. But supposing we were ever sufficiently impoverished and cowed, they would turn on each other soon enough.
The thing to understand here is that this power is an illusion, and it requires some level of cooperation from the real victims. If an accusation of racism/sexism/whatever wasn’t treated as an automatic guilty verdict by a sufficient number of people, then what power would it hold over you? If a large enough number of Americans didn’t believe every sob story they heard on the nightly news, how could you be guilted into supporting blatant bullying behavior?
In the preschools, there was always one power that could upset the bullies, both of the physical and emotional varieties: standing up to them. If you punched the physical bully in the nose, even if you lost the conflict, you made it expensive enough for him that he would probably stop. And with the tattletales, if the rest of the class presented a united front and challenged him, the teacher had no choice but to accept your victory over the tattler. In the rare case that the tattler was believed over the entire rest of the class, it was possible to bring the parents in and challenge the verdict.
Americans MUST stand up to the bullies of both varieties. And they must do so now, before it is too late. They must bring the cash value of victimhood down to zero. Indeed, we must laugh at the individual who tries to confer victimhood upon himself. Did someone use their genitals as an excuse for failure? Point and laugh. Shame them for this behavior. Did another individual cry because someone disagreed with him? Turn your back on him and ostracize him. Indeed, make the value of this product negative. As with any product in a free market, the consumer retains ultimate power to categorically reject something, and that is what we must do as a people.
Stop rewarding bad behavior, and it will eventually stop.
Just a quickie for today. I’m really working too much these days. I’ve been taking on too much business, and all of my other pursuits have suffered for it. But since the economy is still shaky, and nobody can predict what effects the election will bring upon it, I err on the side of making extra money, while it’s still possible to do so. Yet sometimes out and about meeting with my clients, I’ll run into random Progressive spew. In this day and age, it can’t really be helped.
So today I stopped at this little cafe down the street from one of my clients, and picked up a copy of the Tampa Bay Business Journal that was partly stuck to the table from the previous patron, a common little publication that circulates around downtown businesses. Lo and behold this little gem:
Yes, according to at least one journalist at the Tampa Bay Business Journal, the Nintendo Game Boy was sexist. It goes back to Anita Sarkeesian’s mantra, repeated endlessly in her videos: “everything is racist, everything is sexist, everything is homophobic.” And the referenced picture was of a motocross event that wasn’t even in the Tampa area, so it had nothing to do with video games, or Nintendo, or Game Boys, or sexism. It certainly had nothing to do with the publication’s supposed function relating to Tampa area business. The author went out of his way to put this little snarky remark into the article.
I can’t say it surprises me anymore. The journal has been infested with SJWs for some time now. Every few days, they’ll run a political cartoon about how awful or disgusting Donald Trump is. And while I’m not exactly in the Donald Trump fan club, it’s telling that there are no corresponding cartoons about Hillary’s faults. Indeed, every once in awhile I’ll catch an article in the journal about how Hillary is going to be great for Tampa. Somehow. They never really get around to explaining a logical reason for their assumption.
I wouldn’t even read this thing, except that it’s free, and usually scattered about the tables at the downtown cafes I stop at for lunch. That and I have a morbid curiosity surrounding what SJW spew they’ll vomit out next. I remember awhile back when the Tampa Bay Times’ TBT publication, another free publication often distributed in the same cafes (I think it’s owned by the same people, but not 100% clear on that — it certainly gets distributed in the same places), ran a piece about “Operation: Feminist Boyfriend.” It was some kind of progressive propaganda about the moral superiority of male feminists and their supposed rarity and higher mate value. What that had to do with Tampa, or why this had to be distributed in all the downtown sandwich shops, I don’t know. But whatever.
It’s a weird world we live in. I imagine these little free publications will eventually run out of steam. It used to be that the little bins for them would have only a few copies left. Just enough for people to pause, eat their food, and take a copy with them. Now the bins are mostly full, and there are random scattered copies on the tables which people might use as a placemat, or as idle distraction. I’m not sure how long any business can sustain wasting piles of paper like that. But that’s Progressives for you. “Save the environment,” they say, except when it comes to printing blatant propaganda and blanketing the city with it. That, of course, is perfectly okay, whether sustainable or not.
But remember folks, it’s vital for businessmen in Tampa to understand that Nintendo Game Boys are sexist, and they really ought to be some SJW’s proper feminist boyfriend.
So, in the tradition of Anti-Think, Weaponized Empathy, and Progressive Magic, I have another useful term for you: Political Liquidity. Wherever you may stand on this bizarre election, one thing must be acknowledged openly and honestly: Hillary Clinton is more powerful than Donald Trump. That doesn’t mean she will win, mind you, but with the media firmly on her side, from major news networks down to the local business journal in my hometown, it is clear that this a home game for Hillary. Wall Street is behind her, also. The big donors prefer her, while Trump’s own party withholds support from him. Now, we know how divisive Trump is, and how those who oppose the Left have divided into three camps: NeverTrumpers, the Trump Train people, and the Reluctant “anything over Hillary” folks, of which I am a member.
But that alone doesn’t explain what we’re seeing here, why the system, so to speak, is so strongly in favor of Hillary. Remember, this same system favored her over Bernie Sanders, and whatever else his failings may have been, Sanders was not Trump. There’s a simpler explanation: Hillary Clinton is wealthier than Donald Trump.
Does this sound strange? How could the Clintons, whose net worth is difficult to estimate (figures are all over the board, but $100 million or so may be close), be more wealthy than Donald Trump, who is estimated to be worth around $4.5 billion?
That’s just it. Money and net worth is a poor measure of wealth these days. When we talk of assets that we own, we often speak of the asset’s liquidity, how quickly it can be converted to cash. We say this as if cash was the most liquid form of wealth. It isn’t. Political arbitrage is one level above cash. Allow me to explain.
So most of my readers will be familiar with the Uber fiasco, wherein many cities are banning Uber, or requiring Uber drivers to hold the same tokens and certifications that taxi cab drivers have. The logic, they say, is that taxis are regulated, and taxi drivers have certain checks and certifications, and so on, which improves taxi service and keeps it safe for everyone. That’s the excuse, anyway. I spoke with the Uber drivers I’ve used about this. Get this: every single one of them was a taxi driver. Now, I’m betting this is partly because of my small Uber driver sample size, but nonetheless it’s interesting. These drivers explained that they make more money under Uber. Why is that?
My brother-in-law explained the problem to me in more detail. Most cities issue tokens, a sort of taxi license provided by the city, which is required to operate a licensed cab. The tokens are limited in quantity, and there are typically far too few for all of those who want to drive cabs. Usually big taxi companies will buy up the available tokens, driving up the price of what few may remain on the open market, and so if you want to be a cab driver, you must work with one of these companies. You rent the cab from them for an exorbitant amount of money ($100/day, minimum, for some outdated crappy crown vic or minivan). The lion’s share of the profit goes to the cab company. Uber, of course, bypassed all of this. Drivers could use their own car, and business was constantly coming in. The lion’s share went to the driver instead, with Uber getting a cut for hooking up driver and passenger.
It’s not cab drivers who are angry with Uber. It’s cab companies. Suddenly, their political monopoly on cab licenses (under the excuse of regulation) was threatened — the bottom had dropped out from under them. Cab drivers could freelance and make as much, or more. People could enter the industry without paying them. Yet it is mostly liberal cities that are angry with Uber, and banning them from operating, or requiring them to use taxi licenses, which puts everybody back to square one: pay the cab companies a ton of money, only now in some cases, pay Uber too. Way to fight for the little guy, right?
The reason is that these liberal cities are hotbeds of political trading. Just as we might have an auction house, or a stock exchange, or some other marketplace for buying and selling things, so does politics have an exchange mechanism, even if it’s not as obvious and well understood to those of us without such power to trade. The cab companies had enough political liquidity to convert some of their cash into political power sufficient to combat (or, more likely, to co-opt) Uber. Just as cash is a more liquid form than, say, real estate, so is political power more liquid, even, than cash.
In simple terms, the cab companies exist solely (or mostly) because of political arbitrage. It’s an exercise in rent-seeking behavior. Nobody would need them, otherwise. They must agitate for political regulation favorable to their existence and continued profit, or they would be replaced. A certain amount of their value is transmitted upwards, liquidated politically, to the powerful in exchange for royal favor.
Consider a theoretical example. Hillary decides she wants a yacht. A normal person in such circumstances would need to save up the money for a yacht, to purchase one, maintain it, crew it, etc… But someone with Hillary’s level of power need only casually say “I want to go yachting” and some big donor would surely lend her his yacht and crew for however long she should need it. She doesn’t own the yacht. It’s not on her balance sheet in any way, and her name is not on the title. And yet whenever she wants to go yachting, a yacht and crew are available to her at no cost, because she has political power, and she can convert it into a lesser asset anytime she wishes.
When you or I decide to go to a restaurant, we must pay a bill. When Hillary goes to a restaurant, people pay tens of thousands of dollars to her just to be in the same room. So how does this factor into her net worth, into how rich we perceive her to be? We only look at the official balance sheet of her official assets. The media largely ignores her foundation, and the perks and favors that someone of her level of power are given freely. Put another way, does anybody think Senators live off their $174,000 salary?
She doesn’t need to convert much of her power into cash, and then convert the cash into something else. She can simply snap her fingers and go directly from power to desired asset. Her wealth is political, and it is more liquid than Trump’s mountain of cash and ponderous towers of real estate (which are even LESS liquid). She need only carry as much cash in her name as is convenient for smaller, everyday transactions.
They say money is power, but that’s not accurate. Money can be converted into power, and power can be converted into money. But of the two, power is the more liquid. Power is more widely accepted as the coin of choice among the aristocracy. They may have to buy their toilet paper with dollars, though the time may be short before they are more or less the same thing, but great transactions are ones of political arbitrage. The money is incidental, like the moldy bread you throw to the slaves to keep them just healthy enough to work for you. Yes, the slaves will trade the bread, but the masters… their real coin is power.
So it’s very hard to estimate how wealthy Hillary truly is. But she’s much more wealthy than Donald Trump, at least. And the Leftist elite has been more wealthy than the Conservative Right for a very long time — at least as long as I’ve been alive. They speak of privilege and the oppressive nature of this group and that group… but they are, quite literally, the most privileged and powerful of all human beings on this Earth. They have Political Liquidity. You and I do not.
Earlier on Fecalbook, I encountered this little Buzzfeed turd:
Texas LGBT Students Say They Don’t Feel Safe Now That People Can Carry Guns On Campus
After shaking my head about it, I had to respond in some fashion. These people are stupid and cowardly, but in a bizarrely self-destructive way. They invert all priorities. If you were to say “who is a greater threat to LGBT folks on campus” and ask them to compare random Americans who may or may not carry next to pro-Sharia refugees from Syria they would surely select the first group as the greater threat. Why, even speaking about the second would be terribly wrong and bigoted.
And you sit there, and ponder it awhile, wondering what sort of mental disease could be responsible for this peculiar brand of doublethink. I’m starting to call it “Anti-Think”. It’s like thinking, except in the exact opposing direction. It contains all the mechanisms of thinking, but reaches a destination in equal magnitude away from sense. If zero were to be not-Think, and 1 were to be Think, then Anti-Think would be -1. Anti-Think results in an objectively worse conclusion than not thinking at all.
Anti-Think hijacks ordinary thought processes and twists them in the opposing direction. Let us say a good and proper French Feminist is walking home late at night and she suddenly realizes her course has taken her a little too close to an Islamic ghetto. Think would cause her to change course away from the potential danger. Not-Think would cause her to ignore the thought and proceed on her present course, heedless of the consequences. Anti-Think would whisper in her ear and tell her that her fear is bigotry. So to prove to herself and the world what a good Feminist she is, she intentionally steers into the ghetto. Then, if raped or mugged, she might act as one woman raped in Haiti did and blame white people for it.
Anti-Think convinces these people that the greatest threat to, say, women’s rights is white males living in the United States. While, of course, bastions of Islamic fundamentalism are excused, and even celebrated as ‘liberating’ for women. Because wearing a massive black bag in the middle of the scorching heat is what freedom looks like. Whatever a sensible conclusion is, the Anti-Thinker will reliably choose the opposite view. “It can’t be the fault of the person who raped me,” says the Anti-Thinker, “the patriarchal conspiracy in a completely different country made this man to attack me.”
To return to the original article… where are LGBT people more likely to live out happy and productive lives? The United States of America, or Somalia? Take the eeeeevil NRA. So far as I can tell, no NRA member has ever been involved in the sort of actions the students supposedly fear. I remember when Milo said that Gays for Palestinians might be the dumbest group on the planet, and he’s probably right, but these students are fast approaching that level of Anti-Think:
“School stresses us out enough without us having to worry about the people who already yell at us for being ‘sinners,’” added Michael Allen, 29, an arts major with green hair.
I DJ in the club district of my hometown, and invariably every Saturday night there is a guy with a megaphone and a sign saying something about how music is evil, and we’re all going to burn in Hell. He and his ilk have been camping that street corner for well over a decade, so much so that they have become quasi-famous locally. When he shouts at me, being a DJ, carting around my evil music gear, what do I do?
Do I crawl into a hole somewhere and demand a Safe Space? Do I post a screed about how fearful this guy with his sign makes me? No, that’s the Anti-Think conclusion. The proper conclusion is to ignore him and go on about your business.
Hell, someone once tried to mug me on that same street with a dinky little pocket knife. I pulled out a Bowie knife from my bag (this was before I carried) and threatened to open him up with it. Problem solved. I had more reason to be worried after that than these green-haired cowards rambling on about how somebody, somewhere, might call them a sinner.
Some students said that the fact that the guns can’t be seen makes it even more intimidating. “Anyone you get into a philosophical argument with in class might have his hand on his gun while you’re talking,” one student, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation, told BuzzFeed News. “I already feel it affecting my education.”
One of my closest friends carries at all times. I mean all times. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him without a piece. And we talk philosophy and politics all the time, and we don’t always agree either. That doesn’t mean he’s going to shoot me. A Thinker knows this and might think having an armed friendly nearby may actually be positive. The Not-Thinker doesn’t give a rats ass because his mind is somewhere between pizza and Keystone Light. An Anti-Thinker sees a gun and thinks a rabid coke-fueled Koolaid jug is going to break down the wall and blow everyone away with an AK.
Does the Anti-Thinker worry every time he crosses a street that some lunatic drunk is going to mow him down with a semi-truck? Because that’s a lot more likely.
When an Anti-Thinker is confronted with criticism, he will immediately label it harassment. Then he will intentionally harass someone and try to get them fired from their job. Again, Anti-Think. Whenever you see an SJW, you are seeing one of two types of people: either a conscious deceiver, or an Anti-Thinker, programmed to dismiss any potential instances of Think, and reflexively embrace the opposite thereof.
Thus Christianity is the Great Oppressor, and Islam is the Religion of Peace. Thus all men are rapists, unless they live in Haiti, in which case no men are rapists, even if they rape. And thus these students fear armed Texans, but take trips with Greenpeace to every warlord-infested third-world toilet imaginable, or argue for those toilets to be imported en masse into the United States, so that they can make little Syrias next door.
The armed Texans are a problem, you see, but we should bring a million Somalis and let them have guns, and if (God forbid) a cop shoots one of them committing a crime, Black Lives Matter will come in and accuse them of racism.
Someday, historians will look back at our age and wonder what kind of magical propaganda was created that an entire generation of people could be educated in how to make decisions in direct opposition of all sense, evidence, and reason. It will be seen as the greatest historical coup of all time.
So a long time ago, in a universe far, far away… I was in High School. Okay, 20 years ago. But whatever. I remember sitting in Spanish class while the teacher yapped to the administrators about some such thing, during which the class predictably descended into chaos. Theoretically, we were supposed to be discussing certain words relating to government, but somehow the topic went into politics, and not, I should note, in Spanish.
Somebody accused me of being “Republican” and suddenly conversation stopped, and all eyes turned to me. Now, since we were all in high school at the time, saying one is a member of a political party was academic at best. But in those days, as now, being called “Republican” might as well have meant being called a Neo-Nazi. I said that I was too young to be in a party, but that I considered myself somewhere in the middle, politically. I was not really Republican, but neither was I a Democrat.
“So you’re against helping people,” the accuser replied. To him, membership in the Democratic party was a prerequisite to not being a hateful bigot. And bear in mind that this was the 90s. I imagine today’s schools suffer much worse, now that Social Justice rhetoric has had more time to breed. We went back and forth for a time, and it was a remarkably civil debate for being a bunch of high schoolers talking about political matters they knew nothing about. But those inclined to watch the debate nodded and agreed that if you’re not a Democrat, you’re at least suspect in this matter.
And so the notion stuck with me. “You’re against helping people.” It’s the most common rhetorical charge laid upon anyone who is not a radical Leftist. We can go on about how the Leftists are wrong about this, and that we believe that it is best to help people help themselves, and that Capitalism is a wave that lifts all boats, and so on and so forth. But it never really penetrates, does it? All such replies fall on deaf ears, and even knowing these things as I do, I have a hard time considering my replies equal to the task of dismantling this myth. Matching dialectic to rhetoric doesn’t work.
But there is a response to this, one that is equally effective, equally simple, and perhaps even stronger, for it correlates with human nature well enough.
No. I’m against helping you.
That’s right. Does it sound harsh? Perhaps it is, but remember, they accused you of an untruth whereas you, at least, responded with a truth. I like helping people. I have helped my brother on occasion, and my father more frequently. I have helped friends, and they have helped me. I have done favors for my in-laws, and given money to friends when they needed help. Most of those in my life know that I can be counted on reliably even in the worst of times. I’m not against helping people as a principle. I’m against helping accusatory assholes. I’m against helping people I don’t know, people I have no connection to.
Or, aimed at my accuser, I’m against helping you.
If SJWs say that I’m against helping black people, or women, or gay people… wrong. I have helped people who are black, I have helped women, and I have helped gay people. But the difference is, those I have helped are people I know, people in my life in some capacity or another, and whom I know will help me in turn (or who may have already helped me in some capacity), should I find myself in a bad place. No, I’m just against helping you. If Black Lives Matter tells me that I’m against helping blacks… wrong. I’m against helping your group, specifically.
If a welfare queen with 15 kids (yes, one exists here in Tampa — she was big news for awhile) says “I want you to help me,” I will say no. And if someone holds a vote to determine if the government should reach into my pocket, and take money from me, and give it to her to help her, my vote will be no. I’m against helping you. If someone else wishes to help the woman, then that is their business. I will decline.
It’s not because you are poor, or black, or a woman, or whatever other myriad of identities you may or may not have. It is because I don’t know you, you are not in my life in any capacity, and I’m pretty certain you would not help me, were the situation reversed. So no, I’m against helping you, specifically.
I prioritize helping my family, and my friends, and business partners, and so on, over helping random people I don’t know, and with whom I have no dealings. Yet even so, there are times I have chosen to do that, on my own account. I donate time and money to a local cancer patient charity, because it pleases me to do so. But that is my business, and you don’t get to force me to do it. Indeed, if I were forced to give money to the charity, the act would lose its luster for me. I am for helping that group, specifically.
So next time an SJW says something like that to you “you’re against (x)” just shake your head sadly, and tell them that they are mistaken. There are plenty of people in the world whom you would help, some whom you may even give your life for. It is just simply that the SJW and his preferred victim groups are not among them. “I like helping people,” you might say, “I’m just against helping you. Sorry, bub.”
It’s been awhile since I last posted, for things have been very busy for me of late. It is mostly good, mind you, for I have completed a lot of work and obtained more clients. I have no cause for complaint. But a lot has been on my mind also.
In a conversation with one of my clients who is, shall we say, not particularly enamored with Hillary Clinton, I was told a story of her corruption during her Senate days. The gentleman was, at the time, engaged in consulting work for a major health insurance provider. He was tasked to find examples of egregious fraud and put a stop to it. Simple enough work, right?
Anyway, he discovered one example where a man was claiming back pain, and was receiving expensive cancer treatment medication to the tune of over $1 million a year. Given the obvious nature of the fraud, the man went to his employer and informed them of it. Case closed, right?
Not so fast. Attempts to rectify the situation resulted in a personal letter from one Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, exasperated with the “continuing harassment of constituents with clear health conditions.” So the fraudster continued with his scam, bilking $1 million worth of medication each year from the insurance company and doing who-knows-what with it.
Soon after, the man was let go from his consultation gig. I suppose there is such a thing as being too good at your job, when you uncover connections with the Clintons. Like the Kennedy family, the connection with organized crime is no coincidence. Hillary is, in effect, a mob boss.
If you wonder why health care costs keep going up, just imagine how many such cases of fraud go unnoticed. My father-in-law owned a pharmacy business for many years, and related stories of how Medicare scams would result in truckloads of drugs going into shady cargo vans. And he was powerless to put a stop to it if he wanted to stay in business, the regulations being what they were.
How much of that cash went into Hillary’s pocket, I wonder? The Boss always gets a slice of the action. She will need more Armani jackets, I am sure.
Over the course of the last two weeks, I found myself musing over the unique blindness of Americans in general, relative to everyone else on this ball of dirt. Somehow, most Americans are fundamental optimists in matters of government and leadership. Sure, we speak of voting for the lesser evil and regularly insult our politicians. But at the same time, throngs of enthusiastic masses are always available to fill the stadiums. People will “feel the Bern” or chant “Hope and Change.” America will be made great again, and so on and so forth.
Few understand how corrupt these people are, how near to cartel bosses they are. They don’t understand that the default model for human governance is not democracy, nor the teeming masses having any say in anything at all. Corrupt aristocratic elitism is, and always has been, the default mode of human societies.
With great effort did the Founding Fathers reverse this fundamental human tendency and set up checks and balances to delay the reestablishment thereof. But that time passed a long time ago. First the Civil War established the primacy of the Federal Government over all things, then did Woodrow Wilson tie the nation to the affairs of Europe, and finally did Hoover and FDR eliminate the last vestiges of limited government.
The Republic fell a long time ago and nobody noticed, for the outward forms of it yet remained. It was the same with Rome after Augustus.
There is a quote, the source of which I have long forgotten, wherein Hell is described as a place that with extreme effort can made good and comfortable for awhile. But as that effort abates, and the will of the people to continue it fails, Hell will return to the horror which normally governs it. It is the same with America, and the West in general. For a time, through some extreme effort, progress toward freedom was won at great cost. But the will to sustain it is gone, and Hell is returning to normalcy.
Trappings of freedom remain, but they are shallow, ephemeral things, and easily countered by the new nobility.
Growing up, my stepmother was every evil cliche imaginable, and then some, but from her I learned how fault can be found with anything, and how things can be easily twisted and spun. I would be told to clean the bathroom, and with her that meant no speck of dirt, nor single hair or smudge could be found anywhere, on anything. I would spend hours cleaning it, and at the end she would ask me if I were done. Upon answering yes, she would hunt for any flaw, and inevitably she would find one. A hair would have settled from the air, or a speck would have been missed.
And she would say “you lied to me, you were not done. You see? You can’t do anything right. Now, are you done?” And, invariably, I would clean the speck and nod and agree that I had missed the spot and was, in fact, not done. The routine of humiliation repeated for every task, and every thing I ever did. I soon learned that it was not about the cleanliness of the bathroom, it was about raw power, about breaking me down so that I would view myself as beneath her. The new nobility does that to Americans every day.
Our government is much like my stepmother in this. Take any freedom you now possess. The possibility exists that some will misuse it. Some will use their freedom to speak to spout ugly, nasty things. They are the speck in the bathroom. Then they are brought out and paraded before the populace as reasons freedom isn’t good. The bathroom is not clean, they will say, for this flaw was found in it. Then laws will be proposed to regulate the speck, and to combat it, and soon all freedom to speak is lost.
It’s an ugly form of gaslighting. Consider our rights to own firearms. Mass shootings will be brought out to explain that gun ownership is a terrifying thing, and fuck those evil NRA gun nuts. Yet no NRA member has ever been involved in such a crime, and the vast majority of the violent mass shooters are those with clear liberal sympathies. The LA cop that went on his shooting spree went so far as to criticize the right to own guns while shooting innocent people.
Not only are they pointing to the speck in the bathroom, they are the ones responsible for the flaw in the first place. I know for a fact that my stepmother would, on occasion, plant an errant hair during her inspection, if no natural flaw could be found.
Those same elites bilk you for money, for their perceived due. Your taxes go mostly to them and their friends, in some fashion or another. If you point out the theft, you will end up as my client did, out of a job. I suppose he was lucky. Others wind up dead. The Mob is alive and well, but where the old Mafiosos could be counted upon to generally keep their bargains, Hillary feels no such obligation. You are a tool of her will, or you are nothing at all.
Not only are the new nobles corrupt, they are also incompetent. They may know how to be corrupt, and to obtain their slice of our labors without providing anything in turn, but they are very poor at being human. Look at the Clintons’ horrible Forrest Gump impersonation. It’s hard to even think they are human beings at all. The level of fakeness is comical:
They will give everything we own to foreign powers, and give over our country to terrorism and to mass migration, and profit from all of it in the same manner that they profit off of healthcare fraud and a thousand other such things. These they regard as their personal demesnes. America is fast becoming no better than any third world toilet, with its gated islands of relative noble prosperity amid ruinous poverty.
SJWs believe, of course, that the Socialist Utopia is coming. But soon it will be like Venezuela, where malaria reigns, where slavery is found renewed in gold mines for the nobility, where peasants are scratching a living barely sufficient for survival. SJWs wring their hands over slavery conducted centuries ago, but ignore the slavery their own ideology perpetuates across the world today.
They, as early Marxist intellectuals did a century ago, will find their reward bitter in the end, as they taste the same lead the nobility will use against us. Once a tool’s usefulness has expired, they are quick to dispose of it. I wonder if the man bilking cancer meds for the Clintons is even still alive today.
I would sooner have a Mafia don in office, than Hillary Rodham Clinton, for at least some honor may be found in them, some scrap of understanding that screwing their people too much will result in the death of the host. Hillary has none of this. I doubt she even cares for her own daughter, or her family line. It is all about today, and she could not care less what happens after she is dead. The entire species could be rendered extinct, and what would it matter to her? She got what she wanted, in the end. The new nobility has none of the restraint of the old order.
Either way, though, America’s inner rot has already killed the nation. The outer shell endured for a time, but now that too is creaking. Collapse is imminent. But given all of that, I am sure it is time to start worrying about the gender of horses in the Olympics, as SJWs are wont to do.
So I’ve been semi-absent for the last week or so, and for that I must beg your pardon. I have, in recent weeks, picked up a relatively large body of work (I’ve been doing very well this year, but ‘very well’ also means ‘very busy’), and am also handling some more personal matters. Unfortunately, this means the blog and my Twitter ranting have both suffered somewhat.
I should be back among the living sometime next week. In the meantime, I heartily recommend this gem over at Liberty’s Torch:
An Overwhelming Question
It ties into something that has been bothering my for awhile. Why does the media lick the boots of the powerful? What hold do the powerful have over them? Part of it, I suspect, is simple sociopathy. But Francis explores a different avenue. It is a great read.
More to come soon.
Yes, I know, the idiocy of the Left ought not to surprise me so much. But occasionally even I am taken aback by the reality-defying notions they manage to dredge up out of their anal cavities. Remember, one paragon of Leftist Social Justice stupidity thought reality itself was racist, and that it was bad enough to somehow ruin the experience of playing Pokemon (like it needs help in that regard).
As Europe falls victim to Islamic terror attacks on a daily basis, the latest of which is an apparent mass stabbing (but muh gun control!), SJWs are desperate to stop Trump, and his rhetoric surrounding a ban on Islamic immigration. Americans, you see, might fail to see the benefits of importing millions of Muslims into their country, which include bombings, stabbings, shootings, an attack with a cargo truck, and a greater propensity to live on welfare.
So for the DNC, SJWs managed to dredge up a Muslim who died in the service of America, and then rattle off some stats about how some others did, also. I wonder if they included the Fort Hood shooter in that calculation… Anyway, let’s be fair to Humayun, the man who died. Let us assume that he was everything the Democrats claimed he was, and that he was a good Westernized, American Muslim.
Okay. So if all is true, then we can appropriately honor that man, and speak no ill of the dead. But this brings up a few interesting sidebars. Does this exempt his parents from political criticism? If you go to a political convention, and speak there, and insult the opposing candidate, is it wrong for the candidate to respond? Is it wrong for him to insult you, in turn?
No, I’m sorry. If you stick your dick in a hornets’ nest, expect to get stung. The service of your son is not an unlimited shield against this. Remember St. Cindy and her crocodile tears of doom during the Bush years? This is merely weaponized empathy in the service of the Clinton agenda. If anyone has made a mockery of the death of this man, it his own parents. Maybe his son was a better man, I don’t know, but his parents are fools, and pawns of the Clintons.
But then we find that the father ran an Islamic immigration website, and was a lawyer involved in these matters (the site has since supposedly been deleted). So what we have here is a lawyer, politicking for the Left from the DNC in favor of a matter he personally profits from, insulting the opposing candidate, and expecting that he will endure no counter-attack. There’s a word for that: moron.
Beyond all this, though, we have to look at why the Left does this shit. Take a look at this little gem I found on Fecalbook this morning:
Why people are upset about the police shooting of Korryn Gaines — even if she shot at cops
You know, my libertarian instincts make me pretty damn wary of police myself, at times. And I’m no fan of this trend of micromanaging the civilian populace. But if you barricade yourself in your apartment with a shotgun, and then shoot at the cops… well, your chances of being shot yourself skyrocket. That ought to be common sense. Then SJWs moan that she got shot… I mean read that headline again and see if it gives you an aneurysm.
This is Leftist logic, that somehow quid pro quo is wrong. They have rewritten the Golden Rule thusly:
We can do whatever we want to you, but you must treat us with the utmost respect all times. What we do to you, you cannot do to us. We may insult you, but you can say nothing back. We may shoot you, but you cannot shoot back. Any dirty tactic we use against you cannot be used in turn against us.
Turnabout, apparently, is NOT fair play. I remember one Black Lives Matter activist proclaiming on Fecalbook that “Black Lives Matter even when we shoot first.” Translation: you can shoot as many cops as you like, but cops can’t shoot back.
Going back to the Islamic issue, we are faced with a contradiction. The West must be tolerant, multicultural, and bend over backwards for Islam. But Islam is not required to do anything in return, not even make a meaningful attempt to curb the terrorism they tacitly support. If a Christian country sent migrants to Saudi Arabia, and asked the Arabs to pay for them, and to accept some increase in terrorism, and to build them churches and make citizens of them, the Saudis would laugh… and then probably kill the whole lot of them.
But, at a minimum, they practice none of the tolerance they demand of us.
The Left has one set of rules for the themselves and their favored special interest groups. And a very different, and far more stringent set of rules for everyone else. This selective rule-making falls just short of law, so as to give them a thin veneer of deniability.
But as the Khans found out after the DNC, and one Korryn Gaines found out after barricading herself and shooting at the cops, quid pro quo is the default operating status for most humans, and all the bleating of useless SocJus sheep in the world won’t change that. The time is rapidly approaching when terror will result in retaliation, where burned churches will result in burned mosques, where dead priests will be met with dead imams, and when Leftist snarky contempt will be met with the same.
An eye for an eye, as it were.
I don’t smile at this, nor desire it. Much of my political musing has been expended trying to take us off the path that would lead to this end. But my desires are irrelevant. We’re talking about human nature here, and so the backlash is inevitable. Somehow, I suspect SJWs would not like to be treated in the fashion they have treated us.
Tom Kratman is not exactly a subtle man, at least not when he’s speaking politics, anyway. And he knocks one out of the park here: Trumping Hillary. The one liner that ought to stick in your memory is this little tidbit:
Our choice is Hillary or Trump or a hopeless third party candidate, presumably Johnson and Stein.
But Hillary? Look, if Hitler and Hillary were on opposite sides on the same ballot, I’d have to say, “Well, I’m only a quarter Jewish; how bad could Hitler be?”
Of course, he is being facetious here, though only in part. The thing to note here is that if anyone has a record of racism, sexism, corruption, hatred of the poor, and a variety of other such ills, it is Hillary, not Donald Trump. Trump is an asshole and an egotist. And he would probably say just about anything if he thought it would grant him what he wants: a place in the history books as something other than slumlord to the elite. These charges may be justly laid at his feet.
But the trifecta of bigotry that the Left is fond of using as a political cudgel? No, my friends, that is Hillary. Neither of these candidates is a literal Hitler, and I’ve spoken of this Reductio ad Hilterum phenomenon before. But if any candidate is more likely to mutate into an omnicidal dictator bent on inciting a World War, it is Hillary, not Trump.
Nonetheless we have entered into the political Twilight Zone. Nothing makes sense anymore, the old alignments are collapsing and America is fragmenting along her ethnic, religious, and economic fault lines. Decades of divisive rhetoric from the far Left has exacerbated this, and accelerated the spiraling stupidity. We are here, at the event horizon, circling the toilet bowl of history, no hope in sight, only the slim possibility that a billionaire playboy with a penchant for bombastic speech could delay the fall awhile, perhaps long enough for someone more genuine to come to the fore. Then again, perhaps not.
All I know for certain is that a vote for Hillary is a vote for turning into that singularity of idiocy at full throttle, no brakes on this train, off the cliff, forever. I’ve never said this of any political candidate before, not even Obama, for Hillary has a level of control over the corruptocracy that even Obama could never manage.
Tom Kratman explains for us:
Conversely, I suspect Hillary intends to, and is sure she can, dictate what the history books will be allowed to say. Don’t think so? What about all those women politicians who walked point; Jeannette Rankin, Cynthia McKinney, Geraldine Ferraro, Lenora Fulani, Hattie Caraway, Linda Jenness and Jill Stein? They’ve been made unpersons, for all their contributions were recognized at the Democratic convention so that Hillary could look like the trailblazer. Why should Hillary worry about history books when she or her party can dictate their contents, their, for lack of a better word, Pravda?
“Call for Comrade Ogilvy. Comrade Ogilvy, Clinton Campaign Headquarters calling. Comrade Ogilvy to the red phone, please.”
Go forth and read the rest… I know, dear readers, pulling the lever for the militant hairpiece is about as unpleasant a thing as any man might do. Given the option of taking heavy grit sandpaper to my junk, and voting for this man… it’s a tough call, it truly is. But I say to you right now that there is a difference between them. They are not equally bad.
Some have said that Trump is equivalent to Saruman. Perhaps so. But if it is only Saruman, or Sauron, who then? Others have compared him to Darth Vader. Yes, Vader. But if given the choice between Vader and Emperor Palpatine, what then? There are those who even say that Trump is a Mussolini. Yes, yes, perhaps even that. But then, what if the choice is Mussolini, or Hitler? History is full of decisions of realpolitik, taking the situation for what it is rather than what we wish it to be.
Realpolitik says Trump, or Hillary. Consider that very carefully, and make your choice accordingly.