September 19, 2012
Father Do Not Forgive Them. They Know Damn Well What They Do.
"Won't look like rain. Won't look like snow.
Won't look like fog. That's all we know.
We just can't tell you any more.
We've never made oobleck before."
-- Dr. Suess, Bartholomew and the Oobleck
Sean Malone begins a predictably tendentious essay, Arguing with Republicans, with a claim I see, read, or hear all the time when people explain why they actually spend time arguing with the colonized minds of the Left. He cites the irritating situation of
"debating with leftists, liberals and progressives who's poor grasp of economics and annoying tendency to support style over substance has turned a good many of them into socialist weasels.
These boilerplate claims of ‘economic ignorance’ and ‘style over substance’ are as constant as disclaimers in drug ads. But they are either false or ignorant or both. Grown-up and fully functional LeftLibProgs know economics very well indeed, and never mistake style over substance. If this is actually Sean’s experience he’s 1) shoveling seaweed against the tide, and 2) spending too much time debating with LeftLibProg children.
It’s common for LeftLibProgs to say, in passing and without much feeling, that all their proposed hopeful changes to the economic system of the United States and the developed world is “for the greater good.” But it is not and it never has been that way. It is and it always was “for their greater good.” In passing they also know to the deepest diseased marrow in their bones that their proposals also lead to a weakened and, they hope, destroyed America. This is also touted as being “for the greater good,” but again it is always and only “for their greater good.”
I’ve read, known, lived with, talked with and to LeftLibProgs since I was an undergraduate at UC Berkeley. That phase included a whole raft of demented Young Socialists, Latter-Day Wobblies, du Bois Clubs, and seedy Communists right down to the execrable Bettina Aptheker, demented daughter of high-ranking American communists and first cousins Fay Philippa Aptheker and Herbert Aptheker.
Bettina, never an attractive person in body or soul, was a classic LeftLibProg of the era, and she knew her economics down to the last jot and tittle and penny. It was just that her sense of economics all aimed, as LeftLibProg economics always does, to the stealth re-concentration of wealth, the destruction of the USA, and the rise of “The Party.” In this way, even though she is now sunk into the obscurity she so richly deserves, she’s still a poster child for the Iron Lung economics of LeftLibProgism. She’s still selling her scarlet oobleck today because, when it comes to LiftLibProgs, “Once the needle goes in, it never comes out.”
The justification for the destruction of all capitalist systems and, in train, the United States for Bettina was never "for the greater good," although she was articulate enough to spin this straw into gold for the kids that listened to her. Instead it was always for the good of “The Party” which, at that time, included her family pretty much in the way that Saddam Hussain’s economic plan for the future of Iraq centered on his family. LeftLibProgism was then, as it is now, just a gangster play. It always has been anywhere it has been implemented.
Whenever the objection is made that LeftLibProgism has failed everywhere it has been tried, the response is always that it just wasn't tried on a large enough scale. This is the argument that the cure for bad pop music is to just make it louder. The implied endgame is that only when the entire world is remade in the LeftLibProg model, "world without end always," will the promised utopia arrive. Hence the wrecking ball of LeftLibProg economics must be swung against the pillars of civilization until the whole structure comes tumbling in upon itself. With help from the scions of greed at the far end of maxi-capitalism this vision currently has a whisper of a hope of actually happening.
This is why the sclerotic public unions here and abroad are so increasingly violent and strident in their demands. It’s an economics not based on a rising capitalist tide lifts all boats, but one based on the ancient dictum of Lenin: Who-Whom?
Lenin, with his knack for hortatory pungency, reduced the past and future alike to two pronouns and a question mark: "Who—whom?" No verb was necessary. It meant who would prevail over whom? And the question was largely rhetorical, implying that the answer was never in doubt. Lenin and those who followed him would prevail over "them," whoever they were. -- Communism: The Specter and the Struggle - TIME
The LeftLibProgs are not at all clueless about their economics. They know exactly what Iron Lung economics do to societies. They wreck them while funneling all wealth to the members of "The Party." You know, the ones driving their limos in their special lane in the middle of the road; the ones on the private plane far, far overhead that never get the proctological moment at the security checkpoint.
Neither is this class that would be masters about “style over substance.” They are about using the “style over substance” on it’s infinite number of chestless and thoughtless acolytes to bring the “substance” of “The Party” into power, and to keeping “The Party” in power. Kids and adult-adolescents may think it's about “The Family of Man” and “the greater good,” but it’s really always and eternally about "Who-Whom?" The leadership of the LeftLibProgs knows their economics right down to the last pile of ash in the ovens of Auschwitz and the last shattered skull in the muck of The Killing Fields.
Posted by Vanderleun at September 19, 2012 9:34 PM
Before Obamacare was passed and was still being argued over, I was listening to Ed Schultz on the way home from work. He was explaining to a listener that yes, the Massachusetts version of Obamacare was driving the state into insolvency, but that was only because only the whole country was big enough to do the Obamacare job correctly. I thought this was Schultz's own stupid argument. I didn't know it was standard fare. Thanks for that new bit-o-knowledge.
The two most poisonous ideas in Conservative cirsles are "the Left just doesn't understand" and "my neighbor is a lib and he's not for Communism."
Idea #1: Really, 100 years of overthrowing the current order and getting worse, draining the life out of the economy and making things worse? If the Left hasn't noticed this is the uninterrupted history of their ideas, they are worse than stupid. If you had a neighbor that kept having their child drown in the backyard pool, and that neighbor didn't learn to put up a locked fence or watch their other children more closely, would you be able to think your neighbor just doesn't understand? The Left is, at best, willfully ignorant of the predictable outcome of their plans. The truth is all that we cherish about Western Civ is exactly what they are working to destroy and they know it, they just don't tell you that's what they believe. They tell each other that's what they believe and we hope it's not true.
Idea #2: Your neighbor/co-worker/family member who is a lifelong Liberal is no more the definition of what the Left is doing than a US Army Pvt working in a logistics warehouse stateside is the definition of what the US Army is trying to accomplish in a war. Most liberals don't know and don't care what their side is doing. Most liberals have just been taught everything nice is liberal and conservatives are everything that is bad. They aren't interested in if and how they are being used to wreck Western Civ so they persist in just feeling good about every issue, regardless of outcome. If all of the nice liberal got together they couldn't alter the direction of the DNC, even if they wanted to. The Dems have been taken over by the radicals abd the nice liberals have been driven out. Those that remain in the party are die-hards and the extra-stupid.
As a man of The South post civil rights era I know what it looks like when people are examining their behavior and ideas trying to learn from past mistakes. Our part of the country was the very definition of racism. Racism was common and acceptable when I was a kid. Now, even many or most rednecks know better than to speak as a racist and rednecks in the South even chastise others when they hear racism.
You don't see anything like this in the dead-ender commie-libs in the DNC. They aren't even trying to not be a dupe of the Western Civ destroyers. They relish overthrowing WC. Like the feminists they may say they expect to destroy male culture and it will only equalize pay and housework among the sexes, but they know better. They know working their plan will destroy the system. They just expect once the system is destroyed they will make a Utopia.
That is why the Left and Muslims cooperate toward the same end. Like Nazis and Bolsheviks, they both think they will outsmart their partner and take over once their common enemy is dead. They know exactly what they are doing.
Don't be the last Jew on this cattle car to recognize where we are headed.
I gave up a long time ago trying to argue with the liberals. I usually just let them vent, and when they run out of steam, I just mock them. It isn't hard. Find one of their stupid, Utopian ideas and just take it out to its logical conclusion. And mock them. But never ever show them respect. Don't even hope you can persuade them.
I thought the Left was distinguished by a refusal to learn from past history. This even applies when they might benefit from a historical analogy. For example, almost nobody referred to the Whitewater hearings as a Star (or Starr) Chamber even despite the fact that it was both a semi-plausible analogy and a cute sound bite. After Hurricane Katrina, I saw far fewer comparisons to the Berlin airlift, even by people who might have used it to prove the U.S. government had magical powers that Dubya was refusing to use.
They refuse to use historical analogies even when the analogies can be useful. That points to stupidity as an explanation.
"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity." --- Robert Heinlein
Maybe I'm just being naive...
So, I guess when I am standing in the bread lines of the New Obama Order, c 2016, and a former Democratic voter in front of me says, "I didn't know," I can say "Yes, you did... I tried to tell you fifty times." Sounds kind of biblical, in a way...
Finally someone puts the nazi's and the communist in the same pile. Thank you! None of the left wingers I talk to seem to realize that the nazi's were socialists, and when they hear it they put their fingers in their ears and 'la la la la' the thought away. In the end it is really who is more or less of a central planner type. There is no right or left wing.
The idea that lefties "get it" when it comes to economics is a joke.
Even most lefty economists don't get it -- most all of them mistake math and data for economic science.
Good economics is the economics of Hayek.
And not one lefty out a million really gets it.
My personal experience with radicals in college was scary. They don't mind threatening others, regardless of the academic setting or discussion.
Leading the People
[excerpt] He argued that only a radical change in government would bring about a better society. I disagreed. He said that I should join the demonstrations against the University to end the Vietnam war. I thought a sit-in demonstration against the University was misdirected. I suggested the he should demonstrate against the government; the University was not at war.
He said that his movement would become stronger, and eventually I would agree with him. I asked, what if I didn't agree with him, even later? He flashed anger and told me that if I didn't agree on my own, he would make me agree. I saw that as the end of the discussion.
You know, Paul, I was trying to work around that particular set of pictures. Have you no decency sir?
Lefty economists do understand economics. They know exactly how to raise costs to reduce consumption. Watch Obama on YouTube talk about jacking up energy costs. Even years ago the Lefties were like 12 year old girls at a Justin Beiber concert when they talked about carbon taxes and EU level gasoline taxes to support the burgeoning alternative energy pipedream. Even during the Great Recession almost all Lefty economists claimed not to want to raise taxes on producers because of the adverse economic impact. The Lefties sure know low prices at Wal Mart will attract customers and high prices at Whole Foods keep out the riff-raff.
You have to always keep in mind what Lefties say to each other, where those ideas come from, and what Lefties say in mixed company (them and us). Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, which explains why the Left is so perfectly wrong all of the time. They know what they are doing, their script is well-rehearsed, and the non-Left is desperate to believe Left and Right are just taking different roads to the same end point. The Left is waging a war and the Right is trying to win a debate. The Left plays by prison rules and the Right plays by Mayberry rules.
It is not possible to oppose the Left in a manner that avoids the vicious counter-attacks from the Left. Your opposition to them is the only evil they've ever recognized.
Thanks for posting this, especially the "Who-whom?" question, because I'd seen references to that recently, but didn't understand its import.
But the "Who-whom?" question is key to all of it, isn't it? It comes down to who are the ones in control and who are the ones being exploited.
It's part of human nature to fall on one side of that question or the other... which is why the LeftLibProgs ask it. They assume they're the who and those of us who don't agree with them are the whom. I think this is why Obama has such contempt for us that he will quite openly live large at our expense, in the middle of a severe economic downturn, and doesn't even feel any shame for it. Why should he? He's a who, not a whom.
I said a minute ago that we all fall on one side of that question or the other, but I'm not sure that's entirely true; I think we mostly tend to see things in black and white, when in actuality there's a lot of gray. So there are the whos and the whoms, but there are also a lot of people who just want self-determination. I think we outnumber the whos but not the whoms, since the vast majority don't want to think -- they prefer someone else to tell them what to do, what to eat, where to live... because thinking (and living by the consequences) is just too hard.
Like I said, though, there's a lot of us living in the grayness of not who or whom. (Not sure what to call us...) And the LeftLibProgs don't take us into account about anything, which is why they were so taken by surprise by the Tea Party. They weren't expecting a bunch of people to raise a stink and be an impediment to their plans.
Which is why they hate us so danged much -- because we're those roadblocks they never like to have to deal with. Most people are either stupid, lazy, or just uninvolved in politics. They want their cool gizmos and gadgets. As long as they have that stuff, they're fine. They'll be getting a very rude awakening if we grays fail...
The built-in way of dealing with the roadblocks is what tyrannies always do: death. Death to anyone who could keep them from reaching their utopia.
Gven that we're already sseing the Wisconsin teachers riots (the ones in Madison, as well as the supportng ones elsewhere) are turning from uncivil disobedience to downright violence, it's only a matter of time before this gets really ugly. Does the left care what the PR fallout will be from this? Or are they convinced that the complicit media will keep a lid on the reporting of actual violence?
The trouble for the left, as Lucifer learned, is that you can't make anyone love you or agree with you. And most of us simply aren't going to agree to be their willing slaves. Some will, sure, the unionists in particular, along with the Hollywood idiots. But most of us won't. And for those who don't, we'll either be on the trains to the ovens, or we'll put up one helluva fight. Let's hope it's one we can win...
Thank you Elaine. All of which puts me in mind of the famous exchange between Humpty Dumpty and Alice:
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."
As an aside regarding Ms. Aptheker, "betina" is the Indonesian word for a female animal: bitch, sow, cow, whatever. I know, petty and not terribly germane to the discussion of the issue in question, but I couldn't resist. And if the shoe fits...
Anything to bring about the Dictatorship of the Vanguard of the Proletariat.
First of all, it is not a good idea to bring the motivation of your opponent into a political discussion. In my experience, neither Italian commies nor Italian fascists use ad hominem arguments, an you don't want to sink below the level of commies and fascists ... as low as an American "liberal".
Having said that, I very much doubt that ALL lefties act out of self-interest, strictly defined.
I have spent a number of years in academic and semi-academic environments in English-speaking countries, and have seen lots of lefties making their own life miserable by getting hysterical about "the system", worrying about the most trivial aspects of their environmental impact (less so about the major aspects of their impact), going to demos against policies that do not affect them, etc.
None of this could reasonably be in their own interest, unless you include moral vanity in the definition of "self-interest".
It i also interesting that, in my experience, Italian commies see no need to satisfy their moral vanity. In this respect, I am much closer to commies than to "liberals". (Actually, sometime it feels like, as soon as I cross the Channel from Britain into Europe, I stop meeting people who think that being of "the left" makes them virtuous.)
Pardon me if this rambles, but I'm trying to put things together...
I guess it breaks down into leaders, followers, and those who want to blaze their own trails, not to lead, but simply to be.
But the whos/leaders don't want any whoms leaving the herd, so to speak. They want all us whoms (whether we want to be whoms or not) to be good little serfs. Provide for their common good, and who cares if the whoms suffer? It's not like they're meant for anything better. If they were, they wouldn't be whoms.
All this seems blatantly anti-American, doesn't it? I mean, it's completely contrary to what the Founders created. It's contrary to the promise of America -- that we're the land of opportunity; if you apply yourself, you can become anything you want to be.
The thing that made America different was the idea (reality?) that class isn't fixed; that we can move up or down the economic ladder. This isn't true in other countries. Even now, if you make money in most of the world, you still can't live down your humble roots. You see some of that snobbery in America today, and it seems most often to be espoused by LeftLibProgs. Oh, they usually couch it in more clever or subtle terms, but that's what it really boils down to.
Michelle Obama's childhood obesity initiative -- that obesity is a national security issue if all those poor and middle class males are too fat to be soldiers -- smacks of this attitude, that the poor and middle class white males aren't fit for anything better than to be used as cannon fodder for the whos of this nation. They don't have the right to open their own businesses and be their own men, if they were born into families of humble means...
It's fast becoming clear to me that many of the LeftLibProgs in high places see the rest of us as pawns they play with on a chess board. Serfs who make the goods and pay the taxes to support their lavish lifestyles. They don't care about us, though they're adequate at pretending to. (Clinton's "I feel your pain" comes to mind as an example.)
For too long, we've bought it. Every time they've framed the debate in more winning terms, the rubes have fallen for it. "It's for the children" -- say that, and you've won the argument. So the teachers in Madison have called in sick and deprived their students of their lessons, but those teachers are selflessly striking "for the children"...
It would be laughable, if the underlying problem weren't so serious.
We have politicians who don't want to do the adult thing and actually cut spending. So instead they raise taxes, while exempting their pals. They don't seem to notice all the rest of us don't get the same consideration, or they don't care if it makes us suffer more. As long as they and their pals get an even bigger piece of the pie.
The question I keep coming back to, though, is this: How do these LeftLibProgs think utopia will be paid for, once they kill the capitalist goose? How do goods get made, how do they travel from the factory to the store? Where does the tax revenue come from to support the great society when capitalism dies?
I've never seen anyone offer a satisfactory answer to that. They talk about all the people who'll have to die if they won't get onboard with the program. But how do you feed the masses of willing serfs when no one cares about making a profit? When you've run out of your own nation's revenue, where do you borrow money when your credit is shot? More importanly, when you've created a whole class of people who are dependent on the government for their survivial and you've fostered a system which encourages waste and fraud, how can you expect it to provide for those in need? Do you simply kill them off, once the system's been brought down and they're now a liability? Or do you let Mother Nature handle that task and think of it as survival of the fittest?
That's the legacy of the progressives. And I don't see how they reach their utopia when everything leading up to it causes more and more misery and suffering, not less.
As Solzhenitsyn pointed out: the Gulags were not an unfortunate side effect of Communism - the Gulags were the whole point of Communism.
Bill Ayers, President Obama's close friend estimates he will have to kill 25,000,000 million Americans to create his Communist Utopia.
If you examine leftists closely you will recognize them as all of life's losers - who want to run everything - specifically because they aren't qualified to run anything; it is their explicit lack of qualifications that makes them 'the select'.
If you owned a McDonald's franchise would Barack Obama even make it onto your short list of people to hire as an assistant manager? It is not by accident that such an utterly unqualified person became President of the United States.
In the Weather Underground's Manifesto, they clearly discuss the elimination of anyone who is too supportive of capitalism and cannot be re-educated. This includes everyone who owns a small business, runs a large company, works in middle or upper management of a large company, or is in the military. (Back then, they also included the "pigs" and teachers, but now that the public sector unions protect both those groups, they're probably reliable leftists.) It also includes people middle-aged or older, who simply are too set in their ways.
I'd maintain that's far more than their 10% estimate (which in today's terms number in excess of 30 million souls). I'd say the number of malcontents they'd have to eliminate is far closer to 1/3 or more, meaning a minimum of 100 million deaths.
So they'll have to kill one third of the nation's population, just to eliminate anyone who could conceivably be a problem to them reaching their goals. We aren't fit to live in their utopia, in other words.
Okay, but my question remains: once they've eliminated the malcontents, who are, coincidentally, the people who run the engine which drives our economy, where does the money come from to support the poor they've used as their useful idiots? Where does the money come from to build their great utopia and run it, once capitalism is kaput?
I get that some of it comes from collecting the worldly goods of those they've eliminated. But that's only going to go so far, and once it's spent, there's no seed money to "grow" more. When you have 200 million people to support, because they're either the habitually poor who refuse to work, or they're the elite who've lived off the backs of the working and entreprenuer classes (who you've eliminated because they can't be bent to your will), where does the money come from?
I also get that death is the end result of progressism, whatever mask or label it's currently wearing. It parades around as environmental/green radicalism, in PETA radicalism, in islamofacism... in short, there are plenty of cults which rhapsodize about killing their enemies. It's rather ironic that Bill Maher says that such desire to kill your enemies (or wax poetic about such) comes exclusively from the right, because I can't recall conservatives/libertarians coolly discussing vast swaths of the population they want to kill, just because they disagree with them. Do I think liberals are dangerous? Yes. Do I wish they'd die? Sure. Am I going to go out and kill them to get my wish? Only if they start something or announce they're going to round up anyone they don't think is a useful member of society, and make it clear that "useful" means agree with their ideology.
What I'm driving at, though is this: whatever their goals, whether it's killing their enemies or reaching utopia, it's clear there's not much rational planning going on here. It's like underpants gnome thinking. You have step one and step three that are clear in your mind, but getting from one to the other... not so much.
What would the logistics look like for killing one third of the population? Do you starve them, as Stalin did in the Ukraine? If so, how do you do this to people who often grow at least a portion of their own food and have weapons to hunt for more?
Do you put them on trains and send them to some kind of slaughter facility, as Hitler did? How long will that go unreported?
Do you poison the drinking water or release Anthrax into the air? If so, are you willing to risk killing those who do or would support you, along with those you know don't?
Killing 100 million is going to be no easy feat for them...
I saw "who's poor grasp of..." and quit reading. So I don't know what else he said and don't care.
Andrea Harris- You could have just said, "La-La-La-La-La..." and told us that you were sticking your fingers in your ears (see Val's comment above).
Meh. It's some thriller novel, that's consumed like popcorn and rapidly forgot about, much like all those mystery or romance novels.
Is it really going to influence anybody? I suspect not.
And it wasn't the pill in 1960 that wrecked "The West". It was the war that started in 1914. And that war ain't over yet. It's still playing out in Libya and the Congo and Afghanistan and bunch of other places.
And Islam only has until one of those addle-brained terrorists sets an Iranian or Paki supplied nuke off somewhere. A Chechen in Russia. A Uighur in China, a Paki in India. A Pali in Israel. Any number of disaffected persons in Europe or the USA.
Watch a few of those oil fields get slagged, or their monies get taken away, and "Islam" will fade into the quaint obscurity that it was headed for before the oil got discovered.
In every place that it has been tried, socialism has enriched the party elite at the expense of the rest, and has also engendered a culture of privilege and unaccountability on the part of these same party hacks. No matter what woes the vast majority of the people suffered, it was never the fault of the spoiled few who ran things. Even though I live 9,000 miles away, I still see this happening more and more in the US. We are becoming indistinguishable from the socialist banana republics that many of us used to regard with derision. True, we have much farther to fall, so it may take a while before we hit bottom, but the landing will not be pretty.
"Romney Gaffes Roil Middle East, Stagger Economy: Obama Shows Way Forward on Letterman"
Yeah, when people say the left doesn't understand economics, its because they don't. They understand their socialist schemes and how they figure it will all work out but they don't objectively understand how economics really work.
We understand economics perfectly. It's just that economics (any science or pseudo-science actually,) must *always* serve the goals of the Marxist revolution.
So if you hear us saying something seemingly nonsensical about economics, don't make the tactical mistake of attributing it to stupidity; it's simply malice.
What does it say about us in this country that we surrendered our children to them first? Why have we allowed leftists to take over our schools, top to bottom and spread their ideas without attempting to stop it? Until we can take back education, we have no means to make headway against this.
When a person can lie and when caught, can double down and has no shame, what is left ?
The Left has no shame.
When a person can lie and when caught, can double down and has no shame, what is left ?
The Left has no shame.
Another form of Lenin's who-whom was Molly Ivins' (piss be upon her) favorite question "Who's gettin' screwed [adorable folksiness, innit?] and who's doin' the screwin'?"