Thursday, June 7, 2012

Liberalism Is Sick

Totalitarianism and privilege runs in the blood of liberals. They want to control everyone else, but place themselves above the law. We’ve just had some classic examples of this. Observe the vile petulance of the left. . .

S.W.A.T.ing: For some time now, prominent conservatives (including bloggers like Erick Erickson of RedState) have experienced the joys of finding the SWAT team showing up at their homes. Why? Because some liberal group has learned how to hack into the phone system and call 911 pretending to be the conservative. These calls go something like this: “I am Erick Erickson and I just shot my wife.”

Obviously, this is a crime. It is also despicable. Think about the kind of pathetic, abusive mindset someone would need to send the police screaming to someone’s house on a false murder claim? That’s Nazi-tactics. What happens when the cops show up and shoot someone by mistake? What about the emotional toll on these people’s children? Think of the people who might get killed because the police are distracted? Think of the waste of resources and the effect on the 911 system when police start doubting the veracity of calls.

But this has become the modern liberal mindset. They are abusive little Nazis who seek to instill terror in their enemies and they don’t care about the damage they do in the process. To them, it’s all legitimate -- calling out the cops, death threats by phone, mail or twitter, bomb threats to events they don’t like, property damage, arson. We have reached a point where liberals are becoming a menace to society. And something will need to be done about them. . . perhaps the old liberal favorite of re-education?

Uncontrollable Rage: Wisconsin once again exposed the twisted emotional wreckage that is liberalism as liberals everywhere devolved into whiny rage about the election results. One guy told a camera he hopes Lt. Kleefisch dies of colon cancer. Another liberal idiot was so incapable of handling rejection that they actually slapped Dem. Candidate Tom Barrett right after he gave his concession speech. Apparently, it was Barrett’s fault the public didn’t hate Walker. . . or this liberal wanted Walker to cling to the “slim” hopes of overturning a 6.9% defeat. So much for losing with grace. Another liberal sobbed “this is the end of democracy.” How idiotic. Just because the public doesn’t agree with your view, somehow that’s the end of democracy? Someone needs a civics class. Then we have the violent Twits. They posted things like this:

KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER! Ole Bitch Ass Pig Ass Nigga!!!!

Somebody need to Abe Lincoln Scott Walker cave frog lookin ass.

I wanna kill scott walker so fucking baddd!!!!! & the racist dumb assholes that voted for him #nbs

Please somebody kill Scott Walker.
You couldn’t find a less intelligent, less hateful set of morons if you tried. And note the obvious racism. Yet liberals like to think they’re smarter? Ha. These fools can barely speak and certainly can’t think. Heck, if you want to proof of evolution, this is it -- liberals are the missing link. . . not quite human yet.

Again, frankly, it’s getting to the point that liberals need to be medicated or locked up for everyone’s good. They prove time and again that they are violent, racist creatures of hate who seek to instill terror when they don’t get their own ways. That’s called psychosis, and psychotics should be locked up for everyone’s protection.

Heil Moochelle: Madame O has jumped on the food Nazi bandwagon once again and is expressing support for the idiotic idea of banning large drinks in New York City. This is laughable nonsense. For one thing, as with all other liberal ideas, this is unworkable. How, pray tell, do you stop someone from buying two 16 oz. drinks? Whoops, I just found the hole in the security net.

This is more evidence that liberals really are Nazis. They want to control every aspect of your life right down to how much cola you can put into a single container at a time. Think how petty that is! In fact, calling them Nazis is a bit unfair to the Nazis because they weren’t nearly the control freaks liberals are. And why am I not surprised that the people with the least grip on reality (see above) are the people most inclined to tell everyone else how to live? Pathetic.

I Am Above The Law: Amanda Bynes (who?) is pathetic. She’s apparently an actress, though you wouldn’t know it by me, and she’s a drunk, a fool, a liar and a fascist. Two days ago she got caught DUI. Did she quietly pay her ticket like everyone else who gets caught? Heck no, she’s a liberal celebrity! Laws aren’t meant for people like her!! So first she refused to blow into the breathalyzer (which is a stupid move, especially for someone who claims they weren’t drunk). Then she took to Twitter, where all morons go to display their moronism, and she tweeted this:
“Hey @BarackObama, I don’t drink. Please fire the cop who arrested me.”
Well, honey, that’s not how the world works even for you. For one thing, your lord and master has ZERO power to fire a local police officer. You would know that if you weren’t liberal and stupid (but that is redundant). Secondly, they don’t fire people for doing their jobs just because some celebrity turd doesn’t like how they do it. But this is how liberals think: laws are meant for the little people and if you dare to apply the same law to them, well, then you need to be fired because you failed to recognize the superiority of the person you so ruthlessly treated like everyone else. What a vile little creature she is, I hope the cop sues her for something. By the way, appealing to the President to save your butt from a DUI is pretty much the definition of narcissism, another standard liberal trait.

Who Cares About Human Life?: Patti Smith, a singer, just made a fascinating statement. For decades, liberals have whined about how any death is a tragedy and how we should go to any extent (including wrapping kids in bubblewrap) to prevent any death. But we know their willingness to take any step is selective and depends on who gets hurt and by whom. Enter Patti Smith, who is upset with Obama for continuing the war on terrorism. Why? I’ll let the callous dipsh*t explain it herself:
“[Terrorism is] not the most important issue in the world. When you think about how many people the terrorists have killed, its nothing. It’s not as many as die on a bicycle in America probably in a year or something.”
In other words, who cares, it’s only a couple people. And to make her point clear, she added this:
“I’ve said this over and over, but I’ll say it a million more times — I’m concerned more about the death of a bee than I am about terrorism. Because we’re losing hives and bees by the millions because of such strong pesticides. We can live with terrorism. We can’t live without the bee.”
Nice huh? Not only does she write off the deaths from terrorism (cost of business, I guess), but she’s more concerned about bees than the people who died. Wanna bet she believes products which might kill someone should be banned?

Misplaced Tolerance: Finally, we have this little bit of intense hypocrisy. Janice Roberts, a 63-year old Masshole “anti-war” activist, has refused to rent an apartment to Sgt. Joel Morgan because he’s a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. So much for tolerance and so much for the lie that “we’re against war, not soldiers.”

What’s more, at the same time, over in New Mexico, the state’s Court of Appeals has ruled that a private photo studio cannot refuse service to people based on sexual orientation. The studio owner had argued that this violated his religious and moral beliefs but the court didn’t really care. This is so typical of liberal tolerance. Tolerate those whose causes you like and use the force of law to crush those whose causes you don’t.

Is it just me or does liberalism seem increasingly sick to you?

123 comments:

Kelly said...

I thought the soldier thing was despicable. You are absolutely right with so much for “we don’t hate soldiers, we just don’t like war.”

AndrewPrice said...

Kelly, That’s always been a lie that they were anti-war and not anti-military. We knew that the moment they said it because that’s how they’ve always acted. And events like this continue to prove it.

DUQ said...

LOL! Nice. Always with a solid sense of humor, even when talking about these fools. I honestly have come to believe that liberalism is a mental condition. They are irrational, knowingly hypocritical, vengeful and obsessively angry about everything. They are indeed the missing link.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, Thanks! :) I’ll comment more in a bit. I need to run.

AndrewPrice said...

Folks, as with Larry, I need to leave for a couple hours. As they say, talk amongst yourselves. :)

Kelly said...

Also, that SWATing stuff is incredible. They better put whoever it is behind bars for years to put an end to it, but I’ll bet they barely slap their wrists.

Doc Whoa said...

The angry rhetoric out of Wisconsin is breathtaking. Not that they said it, but that so many of them think this is acceptable. And yet, they accuse the Republicans of hate speech? Huh?

Tennessee Jed said...

Hi Andrew - After dealing with illness of my mother-in-law, my wife and I just got back from 2 much needed days of rest and relaxation at what I like to refer to as our "secret laughing place" deep in the mountains of western North Carolina. The coolest thing was we hiked in the Joyce Kilmer National Forest at night and got to see an extremely rare colony of synchonous fireflys do their mating ritual. They all blink and go dark at the same time.

I do have catching up to do now at Commentarama since we were cell and internet free. I don't think all liberals are whacko's, but it does seem the extremists who tend to really act ugly are more prevalent on the left.

StanH said...

This is ‘60s radicalism on display, the only difference the twits can tweet.

tryanmax said...

I don't even know how to respond to this stuff. All of it is the kind of nonsense that makes me wish for Jesus Christ to descend from the clouds and shut all them m***** ******s up once and for all!

Doc Whoa said...

Tryanmax, You and me boht. This stuff just makes me crazy! And it's getting worse all the time too.

Doc Whoa said...

Stan, I'd say it's even older than that, this goes back to 1930s radicalism.

DUQ said...

I would say Andrew has foresaket us? ;)

DUQ said...

Shoot, that's "foresaken".

AndrewPrice said...

Actually, DUQ, I'm back. I'll respond in a minute, I've got a flood of e-mails.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: And hence the phrase "by any means necessary," including working closely with the useful idiots.

Some wise conservative once told me (when I was still a radical leftist) that liberals love humanity, it's human beings they hate.

ellenB said...

Welcome back Andrew, we missed you. :)

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks ellen, LOL! I can't leave you people alone for two hours, can I? ;)

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, It is a mental condition, I'm pretty much convinced by now. Everything they do falls into the category of insane.

AndrewPrice said...

Kelly, The SWATing is really incredible to me. This has the potential to get people killed and yet there has been no outcry from the left at all. Imagine the squealing if someone was doing this to them?

It really is an act of terrorism and it tells you everything you need to know about how liberals view public safety and the police -- they are tools to intimidate.

ellenB said...

Andrew, Two hours is a long time. ;)

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, The left is big on hate speech and hypocrisy. They justify their hate by claiming "the other side does it, so we need to" even though that's not true. And then they act very self-righteous about it.

I would be ashamed to tweet many of the things they routine tweet -- like raping Republican women, the most vile racist crap about black Republicans, and death threat galore. As I say, they've become a menace to society.

AndrewPrice said...

Ellen, It was actually 3 hours, but I won't tell if you won't!

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, Glad to hear you got away. I hope you're well relaxed?!

I don't think all liberals are whacko, but so many are at this point that it doesn't matter if it's all of them or not. And those that aren't full-on whacko do display the same traits as the crazies, just less intense, and they certainly don't condemn their own side for doing or saying these things. So in my mind, they've ratified these actions.

Individualist said...

Andrew

This is just the Two Minutes of Hate that is being implmented by the upper party officials.

The more I begin to understand how the liberal establishment works the more I see the prophecies of Huxley and Orwell.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Same here. Liberalism is very much following the course of those works and it seems to be doing so without the slightest hint of shame.

I think you're right that this comes from the top. If people like Obama and Pelosi were out there stopping their people from engaging in violence and hate and condemning these kinds of things, they would stop. But Obama turns a blind smirk to these things and Pelosi actively encourages and then brings the same kinds of rhetoric to the floor of the House.

It's shameful. And I really do think it's time conservatives started pushing for "sensitivity training" for liberals. Let's use their BS weapons against them.

ellenB said...

Andrew, If two is too much, then three is certainly too much, unless you're using new math?

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, This is the end result of 60s radicalism as the radicals all keep whipping each other into a bubble. But even more to the point, I think this is the collision of 60s radicalism with the internet and the misdeeds of a handful of Democrats at the top during the Bush years.

ellenB said...

Also, I agree with Individualist, this sounds like Two Minutes of Hate.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Feeling a tad vengeful today? I can't blame you. These people have gone way beyond the bounds of what can be acceptable in a modern society. It's time conservatives came up with a plan to put an end to this. I think it's time to start jailing lots of them for their death threats and rape threats, and it's time to start going after the places these people work and demanding they get fired.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, It is getting worse all the time. And it's getting worse faster. It's on an exponential curve right now. And I think it's a result of the anonymity of the internet mixed with an aggressive, vile, out-of-control leadership and celebrity base with no sense of responsibility, shame or decorum. I think the only way to stop this is to start fighting back with legal action, boycotts, and fighting fire with fire where needed.

As always, we need to teach liberals that they can't do this without there being consequences.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, I'd say even older, 1918 radicalism, or even the anarchist movement of the last 1890s, which wasn't anarchist so much as violent proto-socialist.

tryanmax said...

Me? Vengeful? Never! "Vengeance is Mine!" sayeth The LORD. I simply say to Him, "Take it!"

But if I'm not the only one in need of cheering up, I overheard a couple of positives on the radio: Romney and Obama are in a dead heat in Michigan and nation-wide the gender gap is down to 3%. I think people will look back on 2012 and say this is the year the rules of politics changed.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I have indeed forsaket you. LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, "I simply say to Him, 'Take it!'" ROFLMAO!

That's like, "Dear God, I'm waiting..." That's how you end up buried under Noah-grade hail storms like we got last night. They actually had to use heavy equipment to get rid of some of the ice!

Ohhhh that's wonderful about Michigan! Let me also add, they are tied in Colorado right now -- 45%/45%. If Obama loses Colorado, then he's done. And if he loses Michigan and Wisconsin then this is going to be one heck of a blow out!

Let's hope!

I think you're right, by the way, that people will look back on 2012 the same way they looked back on 1980. I really do have a lot of faith in where things seem to be headed.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, That's very insightful -- liberals love humanity, it's humans they hate. That really is so true.

You're right about the "by any means necessary" mantra. That is exactly what has guided their thinking for a long time now -- no lie, no dirty deed, no act of hate is too much so long as the goal is noble.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, you and Doc raise a good point about how far back this stuff stretches. The more you look into progressive radicalism, the further back you find yourself. I think it is ironic that the left thinks they are the party of "new" ideas, but they are touting ideologies crafted over a century ago by Nietzsche, Engels and Marx.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It may even go further back than that, though I can't personally trace the roots if so. Modern liberalism seems to have been born in that angry period when young "radicals" were intent on destroy the "then world order" and replacing it with "people's governments." They used bombs and assassinations and didn't care who they hurt.

Then they piggybacked on movement after movement, each time hijacking a movement (like progressivism, populism, and finally liberalism), each time destroying the good name of the movement by perverting their goals toward destruction rather than reform.

And all the nasty impulses they've developed over the past 100 years are alive and well today and have been brought out by the internet's ability to set people free to explore their darker sides without consequence. Add in people like Pelosi and Michael Moore and other "haters" as ring leaders telling them acting hatefully is acceptable, and you've got a mix which will move people further into the insanely angry category.

Doc Whoa said...

Thanks tryanmax! I think Andrew's right that it goes back further than the 1930s, but the 1930s were certainly the nadir of their violent ways. And don't forget, these same people ended up terrorists in the 1960s.

Jen said...

Most of my experience with these nutjobs comes in the form of animal-rights wackos. I have lost count of how many times the county brownies have been to my house for these "nuisance calls" as one of them put it. A waste of resources, no doubt. They said they get these kinds of calls all the time, and they have to respond to them. I've even had the humane society called out. Well, every time, they find nothing.

Then, last fall, was the last straw. One of these whack jobs had the b@lls to show up at my house. It was a good thing I had company (brought a load of hay to me), and they heard just about everything. I told her (yes, a woman), it was none of her business, etc. After the guys left, I called the Sheriff's department, and was told what to do the next time it happens--Dial 911. The next day, I contacted the humane society. Lucky for me, I still live in a predominately red county. I get pretty p.o.'d when they come out, and they know it.

DUQ said...

I agree about liberalism starting in the 1890s with Marx and Nietzsche. I think there have always been nasty people who wanted to enslave others, but I don't they don't seem to match the other traits of liberalism, they were just power hungry without any design on remaking mankind.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, I like to think I'm right, even when I'm not. ;)

That is true, after their failure with state-wide terrorism, progressives turned to smaller-scale terrorism in the 1960s again. But that's how they started in the 1890s.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, I never realized they were harassing small farms? I know they go after labs and big commercial farms, but I didn't know they target regular farmers as well. What a bunch of sh*ts!

And it's amazing they would call the cops ("county brownies" -- LOL!). Talk about a waste of resources and endangering people by distracting the police from real crimes. That's a sick mindset.

But then, these "activists" are sick people. That's become apparent to me. They're power-hungry megalomaniacs with no sense of right and wrong.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, That's something I have been wondering about for a few minutes. Were there modern liberals in the age of Louis IVX? I don't think so. I think there were power-hungry types, but I don't think anyone gave a thought to controlling the day to day lives of everyone around them.

tryanmax said...

I'm sure if one were so inclined, a bold line could be traced clear back to Genesis. After all, the age old duality of man includes the desire to be free but to enslave others.

I think the likes of Moore and Pelosi and others do worse than say it is acceptable to hate. I think they promote hatred as a virtue when it's directed at conservatism and traditional values.

tryanmax said...

Overlapping posts. I agree there is a marked difference in the late 1800s in what seems to drive the left. Maybe it was the sense that in a modern industrial age, one actually could control the minutia of daily life that spawned the desire to attempt it?

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I agree with you about Moore and Pelosi. I recall many comments from them which were nothing more than flat-out incitement to commit hate against conservatives. And that sends a strong message to their fringe telling them it's ok.

There are others, however, like Obama who has steered clear of hateful rhetoric, but who has very much turned a blind eye to what the others are doing and thereby given them the green light. People like that are equally culpable.

On tracing it back to Genesis, I'm not so sure. Even with slaves, the impulse was to extract their labor for free. I don't think anyone set about getting slaves (or power) so they could try to remake man the way modern liberals have. That seems to have started with colonialism and then fed directly into socialism. I would say that's the distinction which makes modern liberals into the people they are and feeds their impulses to control -- the desire to remake everyone into something they view as perfect.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That is a valid point. It could just be that modern liberals are ancient liberals with a great ability to control people? That is a good point and may be correct because it would explain how liberals seem to suddenly appear, i.e. they were always there, they just didn't have the tools they needed to fully express their sickness yet.

Doc Whoa said...

Jen, What kind of farm do you have?

Doc Whoa said...

tryanmax, It's interesting to assert that modern liberals have more power over people than slave owners did, but if you think about it, that's actually a valid point because their power is much more broad today.

I guess that means the world breaks down into two types, those who want to control others and those who don't.

AndrewPrice said...

OT: Did anyone see this? LINK

Apparently, Obama made a joke about Michelle giving him oral sex. Wow, that's really bad taste! What a POS this guy is!

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, That could well be how the world breaks down.

And it is an interesting dichotomy. Slave owners had absolute control over individuals, but lacked any sort of power to affect anyone else. Modern liberals have (through government) power to screw with millions of people, but not in absolute ways.

I still think, however, that there was a moment (during colonialism) where the motives changed and that is what created modern liberalism. Up to that point, it was economic power or just power for the sake of power, but no thought was given to believing the power was being used to help those it controlled. Modern liberals, by comparison, really believe they are trying to help others by remaking them in their own image.

Jen said...

Andrew, yes they are targeting people like me. The interesting thing is, the first time I got one of "those visits" was mid to late '08, or early '09. Hmmmmm, what was going on at that time?

These idiots DO call the cops. I have friends that don't live too far away, and they used to have a pony that was blind in one eye. They had gotten him from someone, and he used to roam their yard freely. He never went in the road, or the neighbors' yards. Some woman stopped by, and accused my friend's husband (she was at work) of abuse, neglect, and what not. He had been drinking (due to the death of a friend or family member), and was so worked up over the incident, that it took his wife over an hour to calm him down. Due to the description I got, it sounded like the same woman I had to deal with (she is real lucky I didn't go 'Postal" on her--LOL!).

My industry has been warned numerous times about these kinds of things, and that we are supposed to keep an eye out for potential trouble.

tryanmax said...

When you really think about it, all of modern liberalism is sort of a eugenic impulse. If it has an ancient counterpart, it is in genocide and ethnic subjugation.

Don't forget, the Romans made some impressive strides toward making the whole world Roman. Arguably, Imperial China outdid Rome in making much of Asia lastingly homogenous.

T-Rav said...

No, Andrew, it's not just you.

For the record, Bynes is an actress who was big on Nickelodeon when I was a kid. They had a lot of kid-centric programming back then (I guess they still do, maybe). She was talking about retiring from acting for a while not long ago, so I was under the impression she had more sense than some. Which made the facepalm when I heard this story extra hard.

Jen said...

Doc, a small dairy farm, and I'm highly visible due to my location (not in BFE, I can see three fast food joints, and three gas stations from my front yard).

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, Gee, 2008 the Age of Lunacy when American went stupid.

Well, you've got plenty of room to bury the body should you go postal! And if you buried this idiot, you might actually put her to good use for the first time in her life. ;)

I haven't kept up much with the animal rights wackos, but I have watched the environmental wackos. They actually dominate the FBI's most wanted list because they burn down buildings, neighborhoods, destroy homes and cars, send death threats, and have sent bombs in the mail.

All of these crazed leftists need to be locked up and the key thrown away. They are a menace to society, to private property and to human life.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's really a good point, modern liberalism is all about eugenics, both on an obviously big scale with abortions, genetics and forced sterilizations, and on a smaller scale with remaking man in Liberal's own image by controlling what people eat, how they raise their kids, making them wear helmets and seat belts, controlling what they can say and think, stopping them from having fun, etc.

Fascinating.

j said...

Andrew, LOL!!!

Jen said...

Whoopsie, that was me.

T-Rav said...

Andrew and DUQ: First off, "IVX" is not a proper Roman numeral. Shame on you.

Second, I think you can find aspects of modern liberalism beginning with the Enlightenment--how far back, I'm not sure, because it would depend on how you define liberalism. Certainly Rousseau and the philosophes who cribbed the "Encyclopedie" together were, and maybe some people before that who laid the groundwork. However, by the early part of the 19th century, you can see it in full force, in the ravings of the utopian socialists and other quacks who even predated Marx. And when I say "quacks," I mean "quacks."

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, The whole quote it just laughable, from her lack of knowledge of civics to the arrogance of thinking that someone should lose their job for arresting her, to the narcissism of appealing to the President to help her.

Then you add in the fact she's obviously lying as she refused to blow, which usually means an automatic loss of license.

What an arrogant turd she is.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, Within sight of three fast food restaurants! That would be really bad for my dieting efforts.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, It was just a suggestion! ;)

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Um, did I say IVX? I mean -4(20). ;)

That's a great point about Rousseau and the Enlightenment. If I remember correct, Rousseau wrote about the Social Contract and he was the first philosopher to really opine that the state and the individual are essentially the same entity and owe each other duties.

Or I just made that up. Not sure. It's been a long day.

Jen said...

Andrew, Diet? What diet? I don't do those anymore like I did when I was younger (no, I'm not a two-ton tessie either). At my age, I find them pointless, I'm not trying to impress anyone. I 'yam, what I 'yam.

I don't like fast food anyway (Got Milk?).

K said...

I think it's more a matter of the media cess pool we live in than some in bred factor. Since they were children, leftists have been told that conservatives are racist, greedy, authoritarian, petty, corrupt and most of all mean.

In one way or another, television and movies reinforce these stereotypes. How many times when you were growing up did you see the conservative kid presented as the bully, the murderer or just plain evil? How many times are business men libeled in media? How many times does the resolution of the story involve the bad conservative getting their funny and often painful and humiliating comeuppance?

I would say - a hell of a lot of times. So it isn't all that surprising to me that leftists are looking for some kind of vengeance for the imagined injustices conservatives do.

AndrewPrice said...

Jen, I've been trying to eat healthier since last August when a very stern doctor told me that the universe planned to kill me if I didn't. It's hard to ignore the universe... it knows where I live.

T-Rav said...

Oh Lord. Am I going to have to give you a crash course in Roman numerals? ;-)

I wouldn't say that Rousseau was the first one to conceive of such a "relationship," but he spelled out the implications in much more detail than anyone else before him. Read "Social Contract," especially his explanation of the General Will, and it's not hard to see where the logic for totalitarianism originated. It's extremely anti-individual, even anti-human (which is not that surprising if you know anything about Rousseau personally).

T-Rav said...

Andrew, normally my response to dieting is to quote Doris Roberts' character from Everybody Loves Raymond--"What's the point in living longer if you're miserable?"--but in your case I'll make an exception. As long as it doesn't involve tofu, that is. Tofu is truly a fate worse than death.

AndrewPrice said...

K, I think that's right, but I think it's gotten much worse by an order of magnitude in the past decade and I think that's a direct result of (1) the internet making it easier for these people to live in an angry bubble and work each other up into a frenzy, (2) leaders like Pelosi/Moore who have gotten extremely vile, hateful and conspiratorial in their rhetoric and (3) other liberals like Obama and the MSM never once chastising these people or condemning them for the things they do. Look at how many supposedly reputable liberals played along as their fringers smeared Palin and went after her and her children with the intent of terrorizing them and making it impossible for them to live their lives. That behavior has led to these types of things becoming broadly acceptable on the left. And that is what we're seeing now.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, One of all, I no Roman numbers. I just forgot that the rule is that it's "I before C except after X." ;)

You're right about Rousseau, he's a real turd in my book. And I think his "Social Contract" does hold within it the moral justification (if there is such a thing) for totalitarianism.

AndrewPrice said...

Uh, yeah, tofu sucks. I won't eat it. But I'm not really dieting per se. I'm just trying to eat more healthy foods and fewer glorious, delicious, wonderful donuts and fast food burgers. Need to get down to my blogging weight! ;)


Speaking of tofu, as an aside, I read this funny article about personalized license plates and how they turn down license plate requests with sexual overtones. One of the examples was someone claiming to love tofu: "LUVTOFU". LOL!

Individualist said...

"In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the "people's democracies." His call for the "sovereign" to force men to be free if necessary in the interests of the "General Will" harks back to the Lycurgus of Sparta instead of to the pluralism of Athens; the legacy of Rousseau is Robespierre and the radical Jacobins of the Terror who followed and worshipped him passionately. In the 20th century, his influence is further felt by tyrants who would arouse the egalitarian passions of the masses not so much in the interests of social justice as social control. Let us take Rousseau for the literary genius he was and appreciate his contribution to history; let us look at his political philosophy with great skepticism. "

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/french/french.html

I have to disagree that it was the 1900's. What we call progressivism today, that was MArxism in the 19th century is the child of the authors of the French Revolution.

I find it ironic that the two allied countries which brought Revolution to the world in the name of Demacracy (the American Revol;ution and the French Revolution) birthed two separate ideologies at odds with each other ever since even to the point of war.

tryanmax said...

At the very least modern progressive liberalism wouldn't have been possible without the Enlightenment because that is when Western thinkers began to reject fatalism. Without fatalism, the oppressor could no longer claim providence to justify his lot in life or, more pointedly, the lot he cast upon others. If he were to continue in his ways, a new tact was required.

At present, the split in most philosophy is between self-determination and determinism. While they sound much the same, they are quite different. Self-determination supposes that the individual is free to make a number of choices at every turn. Determinism clings to fatalism by supposing that choice is an illusion and is merely the inevitable effect of forces acting on the individual. Hence, the minority who commits a crime because he was responding to oppression.

Supposing the later justifies authoritarian intervention in order to direct the "choices" of the hapless masses. Of course, the (not so) obvious flaw with this thinking is that the self-appointed authorities assume themselves above influence and assign themselves free-will which they deny in others. In order to be logically coherent, the determinist social engineer must recognize that his engineering schemes can only be the effect of forces acted upon himself, making them essentially meaningless. But don't expect to encounter that sort of logic among elites.

T-Rav said...

Indi, the first thing you have to keep in mind is that France was still a monarchy during our Revolution, one far more concerned with taking Britain down a notch than helping secure our liberties (though the same cannot be said of Lafayette and others who actually came over and fought in Washington's army). Second, those two Revolutions arose out of very different political climates. What we call a "revolution" was almost more of a rebellion, in which the colonists believed their traditional rights as Englishmen--which they still considered themselves to be--were being usurped by an innovating King and Parliament. In other words, it had inherently conservative goals.

The French Revolution was far different. It had no such goals, and the kind of state it sought was created out of thin air and thinner theories. Those people were thinking about revamping human nature, getting rid of what they considered a false God, and enforcing an "enlightened" homogeneity on France. It was democracy, I guess, but a fundamentally warped version of it.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, That is pretty fascinating if you think about it. But I think there is an obvious reasons for it:

America pre-revolution wasn't really run by a tyrant, unlike France. So when America overthrew the king, all they were doing was establishing a "middle class" order which was already really running the country. In other words, America was always a land of merchants and all they wanted was to get rid of the government which they felt was interfering too much in the orderly society they had established.

France, by comparison, was an oppressed peasantry who tossed out an abusive tyrant king.

So whereas Americans were looking for political freedom, but otherwise retaining the social order, the French were looking for political revenge and a total destruction of the existing social order. Thus, the American revolution would be a one-off, and the violence would end once everyone got representation, the French revolution was only starting a pattern of violence as all sides sought to settle scores. Ultimately, to put an end to that, they would need a dictator to get everyone to stop trying to take revenge.

So when Americans talked about all men being equal, they really meant it. But the French only hid behind those words as way to feel good about the vile things they planned to do to each other.

tryanmax said...

I misspoke earlier when I said the Enlightenment is when thinkers began to reject fatalism. What I meant is that is when those ideas had essentially become commonplace. Quite the opposite of the words I used. The Renaissance is when thinkers began to consider free will.

T-Rav said...

tryanmax, I think we could have a very long discussion about whether or not some kind of religious faith is required to truly be a conservative, but I don't want to open that can of worms tonight. However, prompted by your remark about the rejection of fatalism, I will say it's no coincidence that the first appearances of modern liberalism appeared about the time that several Enlightenment thinkers (Diderot, Helvetius, etc.) became prominent for their rejection of God, or at least of a God that intervened in the world. I won't say that being atheists made them progressives/liberals, but these people lived in a time when there was still a strong sense of community and it was universally believed that the world had to be moving toward a predetermined end. Even if they no longer believed in God, the Enlightenment thinkers couldn't escape this mindset. I think that's where the determinism you rightly cite crept in, as a result of their need to assure themselves that it wasn't all chaos, that mankind was still advancing--not toward heaven, perhaps, but towards some future utopian bliss. Some of the lesser-known writings of the 18th century bear this out.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, a few caveats in your description of France:

1) By our standards, the French peasantry were oppressed, but at the time they were probably no worse off than their counterparts elsewhere in Europe (with the exception of the British and maybe a couple others). They had some rights; not many, but some; and the state administration was imperfect but by no means ignorant of or hostile to their needs. What really bit them in the rear was their subsistence economy, which made them perpetually vulnerable to famine and disease, and potentially desperate as a result. If 1789 had seen a good harvest instead of a really bad one, the French Revolution might not ever have gotten off the ground.

2) Louis XVI wasn't abusive or tyrannical, really. He was stupid, to be sure, but again, not callous towards his subjects; he did believe he had a duty towards their well-being. And there was really nothing, by the laws of the day, that justified his overthrow, much less his execution. At any rate, he was a darn sight better than Robespierre, Napoleon, or anyone else that came after him.

As to the rest, though, the French did quickly display a tendency to tear each other apart once they'd overthrown Louis. (Good thing they never showed signs of that again in the next 200 years.) And yeah, Rousseau was definitely a turd.

AndrewPrice said...

Shoot. The hail is back to finish us off!

tryanmax said...

T-Rav, given the historical and modern propensity to cite religion in non-conservative causes, I would say that there is no can of worms. If both mindsets can lean one way, then certainly they can both lean the other.

I think the safer bet is to say that in order to be a conservative, you have to have a preoccupation with finding the truth.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, now there is a disaster/horror movie that has yet to be made: The Hail

Individualist said...

T-Rav

Your points are valid. I think however the American Revolution was based more on the works of Thomas Paine, Jean Baptiste Say, Adam Smith and many other thinkers at the time which promoted the idea of individual liberty to pursue their own course.

The Enlightenment however were based off of the works or Rouseau and others that would think freedom was something you could force others to choose.

It is unfortunate that any mention of God in this debate brings such bad connotation since I think the two philisophies are defined by how they viewed man.

The Jacobins thought to remove God and felt that Man was the ultimate authority. Thus laws and morals were "editable" by Men. The founders believed that Man receieved his rights from Providence, a higher authority. This was synonomus with God for the faithful but was considered to be from Nature. It posited that there was a higher moral auhtority that was more perfect then men.

Thus rights were not "editable" by men. I truly believe this one simple philosophical difference is utlimately why the US Constitution prevailed over the Councel of Twelve.

tryanmax said...

I almost forgot about the internet: LINK

T-Rav said...

tryanmax, fair enough.

Also, how has SciFi not made a hail-themed movie yet?!

AndrewPrice said...

Flippin' golf balls all over my lawn.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's an interesting point about fatalism:

If all bad things can be avoided, then it is right and moral for the government to use whatever means it needs to stop bad things (short of causing something worse).

Interesting.

T-Rav said...

Indi, so far as the American Revolution goes, that's debatable. Smith's stuff wasn't well known yet, and Paine had a very mixed legacy--in the heat of the conflict, his tirades against George III played well, but once he started to talk about religion he overstayed his welcome pretty fast. If any well-known thinker had a major influence on the Founding Fathers, it would definitely be Locke, but again, just what kind of influence that was is a bit hard to pin down. Note, too, that all these people were part of the Enlightenment, as Rousseau was.

That said, I think you're absolutely right in saying that the ultimate difference between America and France is that our guys felt rights originated in a sphere outside of human activity--whether X is a right or not, our saying so has nothing to do with it--whereas the Jacobins felt they could proclaim rights based on their superior ability to "discover" them. This is partly to blame for Europe's moronic insistence on the "right" to a certain amount of leisure, the "right" to free health care, and so on.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, the question cannot be answered because it is illogically formulated. If existence is indeed fatal, then the government is powerless to stop bad things. Morality doesn't play into it. Even the deterministic variation fails because the government can only act in predetermined ways based on what has already happened like a simple cause and effect. Again, government is powerless because they can only react, not proact.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, By the standard of the day, you are correct.

But I don't think the standards of the day matter. What matters is human nature and human nature responds to oppression or neglect very negatively. Add in a sense of powerlessness and you get impotent rage. When that rage gets unleashed, it seeks truly bloody revenge.

The peasants may have been better off and the King may have even cared about them, but the fact is the noble class lived the high life while leaving the peasants to die. And that generated this us v. them mindset which exploded when the violence began and didn't stop until Napoleon united them against outside forces.

By comparison, there was never a true us v. them mindset in America because everyone here was basically an us. Yes, there were loyalists, but they were more like your friends who tell you that you're making a mistake dating a stripper than they are people who were oppressing the revolutionaries. So if there was bad blood it was about one side feeling they were right and the other wrong, rather than one side feeling like they had freed themselves from the other. That's why there weren't really any purges after the war, because there was no one to purge. The loyalists just left or said, "ok, I changed my mind," and everyone went about their business.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax and T-Rav, I'm sure someone's done a "Giant Hail v. Sharktorinosaurous" film.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav and Indi, I really think the key is to look at the nature of the revolutions. The French revolution was a popular uprising, i.e. a true revolution. It was done by the stinking masses seeking to change their world. The American revolution was done by a handful of intellectuals. It was not a popular uprising, it was an insurrection by an elite.

And the result is that the French ended up governed by the masses, who are emotional and stupid, whereas America ended up just replacing it's rulers with people who were already in the ruling class, understood the value of stability and wanted society to remain intact, and whose goal was to devolving power to the local level.

That's what makes the Tea Party so interesting because it is a popular revolution (so far peaceful) that acts like an insurrection.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I'm not saying I accept that view, I'm just saying that you can create a seemingly believable bit of logic which tells you that if the government can stop bad things from happening, then it should. On the surface that makes sense, so it has an appeal because if you flip it around then you get the horrible sounding: the government should not stop bad things from happening even though it can.

Thus, once you come to believe that the government can stop bad things from happening, it becomes a moral imperative to do so.

I think there are huge problems here -- not the least of which is that government can't stop bad things and usually makes them worse -- but I would argue that is the fundamental belief of liberalism: "the government can stop bad things, so it must."

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I knew where you were coming from. I just couldn't resist the intellectual calisthenics.

K said...

Andrew: "(1) the internet making it easier for these people to live in an angry bubble and work each other up into a frenzy,"

I agree. It jives with my experiences during the college riots in the 70s. The radicals formed their own little closed societies and conducted "teach ins" to work themselves up into an irrational rage. They also adopted a false world view which since they kept themselves isolated never had to meet any empirical tests.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I figured. LOL!

AndrewPrice said...

K, That's been my experience too -- with people on the left and the right. When they start getting together rather than mingling with everyone, they end up creating these bubbles where they talk each other into believing the world is very different than it really is. And the longer they remain in that bubble, the more they lose touch with reality and they begin to think that everyone thinks like they do.

Patti said...

fantastic post. i'll link it next week!

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Patti! :)

rlaWTX said...

WOW - this turned into quite the intellectual exercise! Which is one of the many things I love about Commentarama!!! Excellent discussion and points all around.

Andrew, did you try grilling again? Is that what attracted the hellish hail? Or are you just lucky that way?

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, It absolutely did. We started with jokes and ended up with philosophy! Yikes. But like you, that's one of the many things I love about this place! :)

Colorado does get hail around this time of year, but not usually anything like these. My lawn literally was covered in golfball-sized ice last night (it was marble size the other nigh). And no, I didn't try grilling because the clouds made me suspicious. I will try again tonight however, so you may never hear from me again! :(

T-Rav said...

Hmm. Grilling usually attracts lightning and torrential rain, at least for us. You should have just taken advantage of the hail and practiced your golf swing--wait, that might have turned out badly. ;-)

tryanmax said...

rlaWTX, Yeah, just look at us dummy conservatives! We could never come with thoughts as clever and nuanced as "cave frog lookin' ß!+¢# @$$ pig @$$ И!88@"

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Yeah, that would have turned out badly. I was outside enough to know that getting whacked in the head was not a good idea. These things made huge dents in metal all over town.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Yeah, they've definitely got us beat in both intelligence and eloquence.*


* For any liberal trolls who happen by, that means "smarts and speaking ability."

wahsatchmo said...

Great post and discussion. Modern liberalism certainly has degenerated from its philosophical roots, regardless of whether those roots were originally reasonable or not. At its core, liberalism seeks to promote one class above all others (the liberal elites) and to do so it must suppress the rights and liberty of the masses. Liberalism does this in a variety of ways: by providing special privileges or rights to garner support from selected constituencies, by creating dependency on government programs, by reducing the import of family and religion to elevate the influence of the state, and so on.

This is why liberals consist of so many disparate groups that normally oppose each other: environmentalists versus unions, minorities versus gays, feminists versus pornographers, etc. The common goal among these groups is the promote the supremacy of the state over the individual to remove individual responsibility and independence. In their views, individuals are not born with certain inalienable rights, the state is the provider of rights.

Since conservatism seeks to reduce the presence and effect of government, liberalism sees this as interference with the special rights that the state can grant them. So when the rise in the unchecked power of the state is limited by conservatives, liberals react with disproportionate anger, violence, and insanity. It's why every argument with a liberal ends with them making ad hominem attacks, talking in non sequiturs, fabricating statistics, or accusations of racism.

AndrewPrice said...

wahstachmo, I think this...

The common goal among these groups is the promote the supremacy of the state over the individual to remove individual responsibility and independence.

... is absolutely right. That describes liberalism perfectly.

I also think you're right that liberals are basically looking to create a special class of people (them) who will rule over everyone else. That's why their rhetoric is so nasty and condescending because they think the people resisting them are beneath them.

wahsatchmo said...

As another example of the insanity of liberalism, I stumbled across a piece written by a liberal (no point in linking it) that attempted to deconstruct the "myth" that Obama is the worst president since Carter. After pointing out that "worst" is a subjective evaluation, the author ignored the entirety of Obama's domestic policy, foreign policy, and scandals, as well as unemployment rates, inflation rates, GDP, (same for Carter). He then used the metric of Presidential approval ratings. So using that metric, Obama was middle of the road and Carter wasn't so bad after all. Guess who he tried to argue was the worst? GWB, of course. But somewhat surprisingly, he then tried to argue Reagan was also worse than Obama, because of his high spending and the Iran-contra affair.

Huh. Reagan, who reversed the horrible stagflation and unemployment amassed under Carter, who won the cold war against the Soviets, who solidified our relationships with our allies, projected an image of strength to offset the weakness of Carter's foreign policy blunders, and reversed then inept energy policies of Carter, is bad because he spent a lot and had a scandal under his administration (for which people were actually tried and went to jail).

Somehow, he is worse than Obama, who has presided over the highest unemployment rates since Carter, has reintroduced us to stagflation, who has several scandals under his Administration (at least one of which resulted in the deaths of innocents), has spent more than any other President in history, has given more to his cronies than any other administration, has started as many wars as GWB (one of which without the approval of Congress) and kills civilians with drones without trial. His DOJ stonewalls, he sues states for passing laws, he usurps the rights of creditors in bankruptcy, he funnels untold dollars to banks to backstop their heedless risk-taking, and makes special concessions to the richest investment banks in the world, yet Reagan is apparently worse.

It takes a special brain to think like this.

AndrewPrice said...

wahsatchmo, That's how liberals think. They cherry pick facts and only trust sources who confirm what they want to believe, then they construct arguments without once worrying about consistency.

It's all about conforming the universe to what the liberal wants to believe, not making the liberals understand what is real. I've seen this time and again from the left.

tryanmax said...

Say, are you aware at all of this Kimberlin v. Walker thing? If so, any thoughts?

AndrewPrice said...

I'm not familiar with that (or at least I don't think so). I know Kimberlin is the guy they think is behind the SWATing. He's apparently got a record of being a domestic terrorist and he's tried to sue every right-wing blogger who mentions him.

What's the Walker thing?

tryanmax said...

I just learned about it today, so forgive me if anything is inaccurate.

Kimberlin, a.k.a. The Speedway Bomber, has a peace order against a blogger named Aaron Walker in regards to posts the latter has made on his blog concerning the former. I’m not sure what Walker’s blogging about Kimberlin entails, but in his hearing (audio of which is abundantly available online) he cites Brandenburg v. Ohio which Judge Vaughey can be heard dismissing in favor of the “Vaughey Standard.” In other words, he’s clearly not basing his rejection on standards of applicability.

There is also a clear case of eldertech in which the judge doesn’t appear all too internet savvy. His order is that “The Respondent shall not contact the person in person, by telephone, in writing or any other means.” He then goes on to define “any other means” as “putting it on a blog, a Tweet, a megaphone, a smoke signal… sonar, radar, laser, nothing.” Either that or the judge does not know what “contact” is.

But the crux is that this Kimberlin guy has successfully used the courts to silence a blogger and, whether he is politically affiliated or not--and there is actually good reason to think he is not--I could see the left adopting his tactics of legal intimidation to silence other bloggers they don’t care for.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It sounds like an easy appeal. Sadly, there are a lot of stupid judges out there.

I hadn't heard about Walker, but I understand that Kimberlin has been suing lots of people and is believe to be behind the SWATing incidents. I guess he's also got some connection to Obama or Bill Ayers (haven't kept up with it) -- T-Rav knows more.

When he defines any any other means, he's just trying to be funny. I wouldn't say he doesn't get the internet from that, though it is likely he actually doesn't get the internet.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, the full transcript paints a clearer picture. There is definitely an attempt at humor there, but it seems designed to cover for shortcomings in his knowledge. IMO, a blog doesn't constitute contact any more than a publicly posted flyer. But I don't know what position the courts have taken.

I wouldn't say that the judge is taking Kimberlin's side as some of the blogs I've been reading this evening assert. But from the audio, I'd say Kimberlin is expert at playing the victim and the judge bought it.

tryanmax said...

Oh, and T-Rav, drop some knowledge on us!

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, It wouldn't surprise me. Like I said, a lot of judges aren't all that bright, despite what people think.

In this case, I guess it would depend on what he meant by contact. Normally contact means to make a directed attempt to communicate. A blog would not qualify as that. But if he really means a gag order of some sort, then this would make more sense. Though it's very poorly done. It sounds like the judge is just an idiot, frankly. And I expect Walker could get this overturned almost immediately with an appeal.

tryanmax said...

I think Kimberlin went for a peace order because a gag order probably wouldn't apply. To my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) a gag order applies to info that is secret in some way. Walker seems to be blogging about Kimberlin's very public actions and past.

AndrewPrice said...

I'm not sure there's a real difference. Before I say why, however, let me point out that different places use different words and this could all be a local rule of some sort. But generally, there is no difference between a gag order or "peace order" -- they all fall under the category of "temporary restraining order" or its longer-term cousin the "injunction".

A TRO/injunction is used to prevent one person from harming another through their conduct or speech and can be tailored to fit any circumstance, e.g. requiring physical separation, the prevention of speech, return of property, etc. It's done under threat of imprisonment.

To get one of those, you need to show that the person is violating the law, that allowing them to continue will harm you, and that the harm they are doing can't be cured by the award of money damages. A good example would be lying about somebody being a child molester.

But this is where the judge is 100% wrong. There is no way Kimberlin can show that Walker is breaking the law because he is protected by the First Amendment and there is no way Kimberlin can show that he is being hurt in ways which can't be cured with money. So he never should have issued it.

It sounds like this judge confused himself and saw this more like the kinds of TROs issued in domestic cases where the court tells people who are fighting to stop messing with each other and stay away from each other.

All in all, this should be an easy appeal, because the judge has proven himself to be an idiot. In fact, Walker should be able to make an expedited appeal, often within 24 hours, and get the order stayed -- but I can't say for certain as I don't know their local rules.

tryanmax said...

Okay, that makes more sense than what I was reading elsewhere. And from listening to the audio, it certainly sounds like the judge is treating these two like neighbors who can't get along.

tryanmax said...

BTW, I was under the impression that a gag order was something akin to a nondisclosure agreement, except by force.

AndrewPrice said...

That's where being a lawyer comes in handy because I know what's really going on. And yes, it sounds like this judge is probably a Family Court guy who got elevated and missed the point that this was a free speech issue and not a matter of squabbling couples. It sounds like he applied the wrong legal standard and that should make this a slam dunk on appeal -- unless there's something else we don't know about going on.

AndrewPrice said...

Sort of. A nondisclosure or confidentiality agreement is an agreement to something secret, i.e. to not reveal it except where the agreement allows (you can carve out any exceptions you want). The punishment for violating that is monetary damages and usually some loss of rights, e.g. license rights.

A gag order (or TRO/injunction) is a legal order issued by the court which provides that the parties may not discuss a certain thing with anyone except themselves and their attorney. Violation of that order is a criminal matter and the punishment is jail time, plus sometimes damages.

Post a Comment