On Hillary’s mendacity: the performance is all that counts
Andrew McCarthy has written a National Review article entitled “Hillary’s Breathtaking Mendacity.”
It describes the lies that were revealed and “made explicit” in Clinton’s testimony before the Benghazi committee on Thursday, and it’s well worth reading in its entirely. But it also exhibits a response that’s occurring only on the right. McCarthy’s clear and painstaking description of how Clinton lied to the American people (but not to her daughter) is freely available to all who read National Review, but how many people would that be, compared to those who read the ubiquitous MSM spin that says she acquitted herself admirably in the hearings and no one laid a glove on her, nor was any new or interesting information revealed?
The Benghazi hearings have underlined—even though such underlining wasn’t needed—how those who control the narrative control the perception and even the conclusion. Clinton can lie through her teeth about material facts for political reasons, it can be demonstrated over and over (or it can be obvious to anyone listening or paying a particle of attention), and if the media decides to ignore that fact, how many people will look for themselves and decide for themselves? Very few, I’m afraid.
Apparently, facts are not stubborn things. Not any more. Maybe they never were.
But there’s a lot more going on here than that. One thing that’s going on is that much of the public has become cynical enough not to care about Hillary’s lies. Yes, there’s the low information voter whose views are shaped by the MSM, and by the mere headlines in the MSM at that. But there are also a lot of people like the friend I described in this post from December of 2012:
The American people do not seem to be “concerned,” [about Benghazi] either, not at all. Major Garrett can ask all the questions he wants”¦but few people except us blogophiles on the right are listening, and Carney and Obama have learned that simply thumbing their noses at the American people is an excellent way to get the people to shrug”¦
I discovered this myself a few days after the election, when I had dinner with an old friend who is an intelligent, moderate, non-leftist Democrat with some conservative tendencies. This friend just didn’t care about Benghazi or the administration’s handling of it, didn’t know the details and was cynically dismissive of the topic because “all politicians lie.”
Well, they surely do””but not this brazenly, because most politicians at least have the fear of being called to account by the media and then the American people”¦
As true as that was then, it is even truer now. And I’ll go it one better: the left and a growing number of liberals applaud a lie if it serves the cause of the left.
The left was always like that, of course. But I think a lot of liberals used to be more principled than that. What’s made the difference? A decades-long immersion and education in the doctrine of moral relativism:
What is truth, and can it be determined? Way way too many people answer “no,” and so they’ve given up trying or caring. And if they don’t care, why should our public officials answer inopportune and potentially embarrassing questions? No; what’s important is feelings…And most Americans will nod, if they’re paying attention at all.
I will expand on what I wrote back then and add that, this past Thursday, what seems to have been important to most pundits in the MSM (and therefore most liberals) was Hillary’s demeanor: she was measured, calm, and quick to respond. It belied the idea (as did her performance in the recent Democratic debate) that she’s too tired and old, too mentally spent, to be president. She’s still sharp, all right, when need be.
But the substance of what she actually said and did, now and back in the fall of 2012 and after, should be seen as abhorrent. Yet it doesn’t appear that enough Americans care, and because of that we may be in the lamentable situation where Hillary is in a good position to become the next president of the United States.
I think a lot of that is because people don’t understand that the lying she, and the administration, did was to cover up something that very likely would have cost Obama re-election. Namely, a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 that should have been easily foreseeable, unlike the original 9/11 attacks. There’s also been suggestion that the lack of response was partially due to the fact that had they responded, it would have forced them to admit it was a terrorist attack, They didn’t respond in order to try to cover that fact up, making them even more guilty. These are all things that could destroy Obama, any legacy he might leave behind, the Democratic party, and the MSM. This can’t and won’t happen. I also think that the media has determined that Hillary is their only chance to keep the Whitehouse, and they will drag her dead lifeless body over the finish line, if that’s what’s required.
One other thing that seems to be lost in all of this, the person who created the video that supposedly caused those attacks is in jail to cover up their lies.
Neo: “Apparently, facts are not stubborn things. Not any more. Maybe they never were.”
Of course. Isn’t the ‘change’ origin story for your blog founded on that realization? Did you not take trial advocacy in law school?
Facts have intrinsic value, but in order for them to be evaluated properly, facts must be presented with a sufficient narrative frame that’s established on the proper foundation of premises.
In the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game, narrative is elective truth. The actual truth is just another narrative that must be competed for like any other.
Like I’ve said, the false/BDS narrative of the Iraq mission is patient zero for current events.
Once the American people were convinced of the lie that ‘Bush lied, people died’, they were inveigled to pledge allegiance to the actual liars.
Solution to the problem: Restore the alternative by setting the record straight on the Iraq mission for the zeitgeist and publicly discredit the actual liars on that issue.
It’s doable with the right method because the law and policy of the Iraq mission are straightforward. Expose the actual liars so the American people can choose the right side.
Ok, I’m laughing at myself. I made my above comments before reading the article, which details all of the above. Feel free to delete them.
Dana Perino made an excellent point. Just cross her on the 600 requests for help and her email admissions that the videos had nothing to do with the attacks. I would add questions on why no help was sent. Maybe 2-3 hours.
The tangents and length only detracted from the case.
Just what are we to do — what CAN we do — when there is no outrage? I am first of all indignant that a national leader can make a mockery of the US Congress, secondly that the members of her party can absorb it like the sycophants they are and criticize the Republicans as political manipulators when it is they who are, and thirdly that the MSM can write it off as a political victory for her. She clearly lied under oath, and that’s a victory?
There was a time I thought honesty was the most important quality humans possessed. Without it, without the integrity, honor and morality that come with honesty, we have lost our humanity. Then I realized my dog was more honest than many politicians I knew. So much for that theory.
Perhaps, though, humanity is transported to a higher level through a commitment to honesty. If this is so it explains my revulsion to Hillary. It is not a party thing: there are certainly members of the Democrat party who do not revolt me. I cannot say that about Hillary. Or Obama. Or Harry Reid. The list is long, but not without end, and not without inclusion of Republicans too.
The question then becomes: how can it be that people accept her dishonesty and manipulativeness with such equanimity? What does it say about them that they are content to be either a dupe or an accomplice?
I watched some of the hearings. Chelsea was visible over Hillary’s right shoulder, and I caught myself thinking more than once that she must know how dishonest her mother is. Especially after the disclosure that Hillary had sent her an email within hours of the Benghazi attack (and before the announcement that it was caused by a video), an email saying we had lost two officers in a terrorist attack. Then Hillary participated in a Rose Garden announcement a little later during which the video was called the causative event that triggered the attack. What did Chelsea think? That the lie was ok because it allowed Obama to be re-elected? And protected her mother? Is our Republic so unimportant that re-election of an incompetent president trumps truth?
I am terribly disappointed that this display did not result is some erosion of support for Hillary from her party and from the MSM. Did no TV anchor ask themselves why they continue to support an openly dishonest person, and one who is incompetent to boot? Will no newspaper publisher say the time has come to re-evaluate the paper’s position on her candidacy?
I know, I’m naive. But I am because of the historical mythology that prevailed when I was young. You know, George Washington and the cherry tree? That kind of thing? Contrast that story with the story of Hillary telling a lie to perpetuate her candidacy.
And there’s still no outrage?
It’s a sad state we have reached. I am disappointed with the lack of national outrage.
Last night Fox News ran an update on the program “13 hours at Benghazi.” It basically covers exactly what happened from early in the evening of 9/11/12 until the attacks ended on the morning of 9/12/12. The narrative was done by three of the Blackwater contractors who were security personnel at the CIA annex.
When the attack on the embassy compound began the forces at the annex knew they were needed. They were ready to go almost instantly, but they were held up by instructions from someone higher up in the chain of command. That someone was not identified. After 25 minutes of delay, the operators ignored orders and went to the compound. There, they found only the DoS security man and an already dead Sean Smith. They searched frantically for Ambassador Stevens, but to no avail. Things were very hot so they headed back to the annex. They had to fight their way through a hail of bullet to get back to the annex. Once there, they set up defensive positions and called Tripoli for backup – both air cover and backup trigger pullers. They fought off an extended attack, which included attacks by RPGs. They finally managed to kill the RPG launch man. Then things went quiet, but they knew from experience that the jihadis were getting reinforcements for another attack. Just about daybreak a few men arrived from Tripoli – among them Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Those two plus two other of the contractors were on the roof of the annex when mortar fire suddenly began raining down on the building. Doherty and Woods were killed instantly and the other two contractors were severely wounded. The battle raged on for a some time until a large convoy of reinforcements came trucking into the annex. The “cavalry” had arrived and the jihadis turned tail.
The surviving contractors believe that, if they had left for the embassy compound immediately, Sean Smith and Ambassador Stevens would have been saved; and if help had come immediately in the form of air cover or more personnel from Tripoli, Doherty and Woods would not have died. The delays in reacting to the attacks were the proximate cause of the large number of casualties. Who was responsible? The best information seems to be that Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy was the one who was gumming up the works. If so, nothing has ever been said about it officially. It has been carefully swept under the rug. More facts that need to be revealed by the Benghazi committee.
I think you’ve isolated the underlying salient issue, Neo. Decades long immersion and education in moral relativism. The left is reaping its reward from the “long-march” through the institutions. Hillary’s performance and the obsequious, even celebratory, response almost uniformly throughout the MSM truly underscores how thorough and successful this march has been.
I have long since accepted that neither any MSM outlet of significance nor most liberals (not just leftist, but “mainstream”, “moderate” liberals…the scare quotes indicate how odd and foreign such a concept is rapidly becoming) would ever subject anything Obama says or does to serious scrutiny or critical analysis. The wide and varied reasons for this refusal have been hypothesized, analyzed, discussed, dissected, debated and mourned over ad infinitum. But, up until recently, I thought he was a special exception. I have now, painfully, realized he is not (or not any longer).
From the bogus Rolling Stone UVA rape story to the Planned Parenthood’s vile behavior, to the fictitious narratives spun around Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown (and the resulting “Black Lives Matter” movement) to the shameless and incoherent exploitation of fatal shootings for gun control, to Hillary Clinton’s lies about Benghazi and her emails, the left’s overarching moral dictum has now been thorough mainstreamed:
The only test for morality is what advances the leftist narrative. All actions which do are moral. Any which don’t are immoral.
The left’s ultimate epistemic standard is also thoroughly mainstream:
Truth is what advances social justice (defined by the left as anything which ultimately gives them more power). Falsity is whatever hinders social justice.
What is sobering, even chilling, is that so many liberals; so many otherwise decent, intelligent, rational and humane people, are immersed in, and deferential to, the above dicta.
What to say? What to do? But mourn?
lets go through reading The 2016 U.S. Presidential Race: A Cheat Sheet
All politicians lie. All people lie. Neither truth exculpates the liar when, in the commission of it, deaths occur and cover-ups convene.
The MSM can do no more with the intrigues of Mrs. Clinton than merely Scotchgard them.
The long trudge that is the 2 year long national campaign has the advantage of offering time to make known what the MSM conspires to conceal — if the stupid party will smarten up. First, forego the inane political ads — ‘making America great again’, etc. Let not a day go by where somewhere in the country it is not made known that Mrs. Clinton is more intimately acquainted with lies and scandal than the duties of office. Make links available that essentially or thoroughly make the case – Samizdat press, handbills, pamphlets, posters. The tactics are sundry, the time plentiful — just start after the holidays. Bring down the Lizard Queen and make it known that in all her public political life she had chanced upon the truth only once — when she had conjured a vast conspiracy.
Sometimes, one reads a statement that just rings a big chime of reality and truth in one’s head. A couple of weeks ago, I read a statement on another blog that did just this for me. It was something I instinctively knew, but refused to acknowledge to myself:
(paraphrasing)
“We don’t really have ‘news’ in the USA anymore.”
And it’s dead on correct. There is no reporting, just editorializing. No presentation of two or more sides of an issue, just “This idea is right, all others are wrong. Get with it.”. It’s often been written off to the 24-hour news cycle, or whatever, but it is there; constant presentation of an opinion backed by selective presentation of fact.
This entire story is an exemplification of the effect. There is truth underneath the surface for those that are willing to invest the effort to look. People like us, who seek out depth of thought in the last place we can.
Few other voters will make that investment, for lack of time, lack of effort, lack of interest, whatever.
This mendastic woman will be railroaded into the office, no matter what. Arms will be twisted, careers will be runined, lies will be propogated. Key to that railroading will be this process; only one “reality” will be presented for consumption, anyone who disagrees will be “othered” into oblivion. And that is exactly the process we’re witnessing.
I’m still obtuse enough to believe that our republic can survive the neglect and incompetence of 2008-2016 (as long as there is not an open attack on citizens inside our borders, and this is not yet assured).
It is not a matter of “if” this woman is “elected”; too many have a vested interest in the outcome, and the PR machine is now running at 110% capacity. I have zero confidence that our republic survives that event. As well as a vast expanse of the “wrong” people here in flyover country.
The media long ago turned themselves into Pravda for the democrats. I remember an interview with David Brinkley in the 1960s where he said the news is what ever he says it is. Now the media just makes stuff up.
La Kelly does a good job here:
Watch Megyn Kelly Totally Destroy Hillary Over Benghazi
Not that it’ll matter ….
I’ll blame the voters ….
There was a time, after Obama began his reign and it became obvious what a divisive pathetic excuse for a president he was, that one could hope that the media would be chagrined, embarrassed, etc., at their role in electing a non-vetted candidate. The opposite happened. They were emboldened and thrilled. There is no going back.
Several commenters seem to missing one of Neo’s main points – Democrats don’t care about the truth. More access to better information is not going to change that.
Excellent analysis — and mirrors exactly what I was thinking as I finished an article from the Atlantic just before reading this one: the title was “What Conservative Media Say about the Benghazi Hearing” and it talked only about the reaction (Left and Right) to her “composure” — the optics of whether she “won” or “lost” — and did not mention a single one of the several bomb-shells that were dropped which would, in a sane world, have had her immediately marched off in cuffs.
And the article before that one was a salutary editorial on why the movie “Truth” was a betrayal of journalistic integrity.
We’re doomed.
People only hold positions of apathy because they CAN AFFORD to hold those positions. As soon as apathy starts carrying an identifiable, serious cost people will start caring.
The ones who continue to be apathetic will be weeded out.
F- I also remember the cherry tree and George Washington! He didn’t tell lies! This was so impressed upon me as a child and it was about honor and integrity. Because it was Washington, those values were meshed with our country. And now…
Like everyone else here and Neo I am just flummoxed that the MSM and so many of my otherwise honorable and smart friends are going in for the big lie with Clinton. And, she has exposed herself with the emails and this testimony. The HuffPo and others (well it is the HuffPo) are painting this as a triumph for Hillary and a show of political “gotcha” by the Republicans. It really is amazing.
It makes me wonder if lies were always the case with politicians or are things just worse than ever?
It became obvious to me listening that Clinton was shielding Obama. I doubt he would do the same for her. I think the lie of the video was more his doing and she was not in on it originally as she wrote to Chelsea the truth. Still, that’s no excuse.
Her performance was pretty good, given she’s guilty as charged of being incompetent in this situation and lying about what caused it.
I won’t be surprised if she is the next president. People just WANT to believe her.
Wow, Neo is SUPER spot-on. The predominant narrative makers deny the existence of objective truth and thus avoid an obligation to attempt objectivity. Most of us are led around by those narratives — to the extent our plugged in short attention spans allow.
Matt_SE: IMO that will just lead to more people wanting gov’t largesse. People don’t vote for austerity.
[Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio] said to her, “I’m reading what you said in plain language, ‘We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.’ … That’s vastly different than vicious behavior justified by Internet material. Why didn’t you just speak plain to the American people?”
“I’m sorry that it doesn’t fit your narrative, congressman,” Clinton said. “I can only tell you what the facts were…
Hmmm …
Hmmm …
Hmmm …
The Ceausescus come to mind …
They were THAT clever ….
Remember Sen. Howard Baker (*R*) at the Watergate hearings? “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”
I figure the video narrative was a concoction of some combination of Obama, Clinton, and Jarrett. Does anybody care who actually dreamt up the video narrative?
For each of Obama, Clinton, Jarrett: what did s/he know and when did s/he know it? It’s a sad commentary that no one is trying to get to the bottom of this. Who’s responsible here?
I suppose it’s because none of them has any qualms whatsoever about lying under oath anyway, so why the h#ll bother — thereby underscoring one of neo’s main points (or what I perceive as one of neo’s main points).
It is possible that Hillary is covering for her former boss. Why might she do that? I’ll tell ya why: his thugs are as vicious and unforgiving as are her thugs. Or does he have some really juicy information on her?
“Doctrine of moral relativism.” I’m not so sure that this is truly taken and used as a doctrine , but really only as a political weapon by leftists. Their political opponents are never forgiven and never given excuses for their (oftentimes made-up ) transgressions. People like Schumer Obama and Clinton would and do attack their enemies citing principles that become strangely quaint, foggy, relative, barely significant notions when one of their people or policies are the focus of attention. They are real pros at manipulating this moral relativism tool.
M J R Says:
October 25th, 2015 at 12:47 am
Remember Sen. Howard Baker (*R*) at the Watergate hearings? “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”
I figure the video narrative was a concoction of some combination of Obama, Clinton, and Jarrett. Does anybody care who actually dreamt up the video narrative?
Now let’s put your noggin to work:
How in the world did the Secretary and the President even know this totally obscure video was on the Web ?
THINK.
All of the breadcrumbs lead back from the video producer [ Nakoula Basseley Nakoula ] back to the US Government – and this administration – and its media operations gambits.
Taken at face value the video is a flaming example of “Islamophobia.”
Say, who is famous for fanning that flame ?
Barry’s pals in the Muslim Brotherhood, that’s who.
Islamophobia’s been revived by Ahmed the clockworker, a total agitprop stunt from beginning to end.
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2015/09/18/anatomy-of-a-media-hoax-istandwithahmed/
With less than one-thousand hits on YouTube, there would be a million reasons why the administration — and the Secretary would not know of this pitiful video. It’s actually not related to the Cairo protests — whatsoever.
The Wiki account is as contaminated as anything this administration manipulates. The Islamists are crystal clear: they were protesting the incarceration of the “Blind Sheik” — with his name visible in the backround of MSM broadcasts that day from Cairo.
They were also protesting the drone assassination of a significant Islamist — who was tied into the “Blind Sheik’s” band of brothers.
It’s ONLY this administration that has consistently pushed the “Innocence of Muslims” video.
&&
BTW, get a load of that title. Just right there, doesn’t it strike you as Click Bait for Muslims ? — A sentiment that is the exact opposite of that which any Western audience that might be simpatico with Nakoula ?
You are looking straight at a media manipulation operation — in which the production values are deliberately trashy to hide the sophistication of the provacateurs.
The video was an “asset” that was ‘kept on the bench’ — very much like a KGB or CIA ‘legend’ so that it could be wheeled out to suit the need.
I believe that it was originally intended to buttress the Islamophobia agitprop meme.
&&&
“He claimed he had produced a movie titled Innocence of Muslims, which was being promoted on YouTube. He falsely claimed the movie had been funded by $5 million collected from 100 Jewish donors, and that he himself was an Israeli Jew.[6][32]”
This is a ‘rich’ concept. Our man produces a video that is click bait for Muslims — and then publicly lays its production upon world Jewry.
Is that the act of a man that is actually trying to frustrate the Islamist cause ?
No. It’s consistent with the original mission scheme — to create an inflaming Islamophobic video and lay the breadcrumbs straight to “the eternal Jew.”
&&&
At the last moment, it was re-vectored by this administration to deflect the media away from reality — during this critical period of the President’s reelection campaign.
The administration knew about “Innocence of Muslims” because it was its own media asset. That’s just about the ONLY way that a high governmental official could’ve known about something so obscure.
&&&
Nakoula has horrific debts, and not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
He’d be easy to pressure, as his plea bargain evidences.
By playing ball, he’s got the administration covering the health and welfare of his family. Obviously.
They have, otherwise, no visible means of support — and Nakoula has no assets that would not be seized the second they became known.
As for breadcrumbs, his relative has goverment contracts. Dang if I haven’t lost the URL.
Occam’s Razor.
What do you make of this:
“The film which insulted the Prophet was a direct attack on our values and if America wants good relations with the Muslim world it needs to do so with respect,” Abu Khattala said. “If they want to do it with force, they will be met with force.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/18/us-libya-consulate-attack-idUSBRE89H19P20121018
(The guy who we captured as being “behind the attacks”–in an interview before he was captured)
The Omnivore…
The kicker is that the film doesn’t exist… at least it has never been aired// uploaded to YouTube.
The “Innocence of Muslims” that was uploaded was a TRAILER.
It was all tease and had no plot. It was short.
http://canadafreepress.com/article/body-of-lies-from-benghazi-to-barack
The weight of the evidence drives one to conclude that this bogus video was a CIA asset — constructed very much along the lines of ARGO.
After ARGO, the CIA concluded that it would be extremely wise to always have a media ‘legend’ on the shelf// in the works.
Or as they say in Hollywood: “in turnaround” ==> script re-write limbo.
This trailer had such a LOW hit count that there’s no WAY that it had come to the attention of American intelligence.
To repeat: it’s not a film, not a video — it’s a trailer, an advert for a film — that’s never been produced.
Nakoula admits he never got any further. Heh.
It’s in “turnaround, alright.” Heh.
No, the obvious conclusion must be that it — the media effort — was a CIA asset — that was brought to bear on the sticky political ‘optics’ September 12, 2012.
That John Brennan suggested it would seem axiomatic.
His firm has ties that go way back — and intersect.
The CIA Director, David Petraeus, would not be involved in such a (petty)scheme. [ 90% of the CIA is dedicated to analysis — not human intelligence. ]
The video producer profiles as a CIA front man and dupe. He got himself into serious legal troubles way, way, back.
Read more at the link.
Indeed, we are drowning in loose ends.
Like Watergate, the threads head off in all directions.
All that lint.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s gab just killed Trey Gowdy’s cred.
The gun is smoking — and on the table — and the press can’t get a whiff.
Consider this: The mother of Glen Doherty (killed in the Benghazi attack) was given coverage in the Boston Herald recently because
*She was appalled that an *anti Hillary pac*
had the audacity (????) to use her son’s voice in a political ad !!!! ?????
So mom, I guess we would have to surmise a good Leftist as well, apparently dosen t *think*
her son ‘s death needs to be *explained*!!!
or employed as a *talking point* by the Right.
So she dosent care a wiff for truth either.
Or perhaps as his mom, she is just hurt by it all,
but I tend to doubt that scenario.
of course *we * have no news in America
NBC altered spoken conversation to portray a private citizen as a bigot (Zimmerman doctored
911 tape)
A bizzare *movie* produced to *defend* a disgraced Lefty darling is entitled *TR
UTH*
George Steph….. a Clinton political hack graduate was allowed to appear as a unbiased questioner regarding a *book* criticizing his
mentors financial improprieties.
Sheryl Atkisson a truth seeking reported was invited to leave her employ at CBS for being truthful.
AS Michael Savage likes to call them “The vermin
in the media !
Why would anyone think that this doesn’t end in tears? Anyone want to bet a government full of shit bags like Lois Lerner is also manipulating the jury pools too. Best way to keep people without the “right” opinion off juries is to not call them for jury duty in the first place.
There are still womyn who aren’t sheep in this country:
Final Thoughts from Tomi Lahren
Most will vote for Hiltlery though … same pattern as the last elections … TWICE will become THRICE!
The Clinton’s seriously damaged the polity of the country, laying the ground work for Obama’s third world lawlessness.
If the argument of the left is that everyone lies, then everything Clinton has said in her defense is a lie. Sort of like the leftist meme that all white people are racists. That being the case then every white person saying that is a racist.
The left wing media had their coverage of the hearing already written weeks ahead of time. Not surprising that they are claiming Rodham is a God. Did anyone notice that she struggled to retrieve words on several occasions ? Does this have anything to do with her fall/stroke at the beginning of the year?
The hearings established a number of things that the Pravda media should be talking about. Including the following:
–the whole toppling of Qaddafi thing was Rodham’s idea. She pushed it, arranged it.
–Rodham and Obama knew at the very start that the video was not the cause of the attack. She and Obama created an utterly fraudulent meme and like a third world hell hole jailed an innocent man.
–Rodham and Obama were given 600+ requests for more security that they ignored for electoral reasons.
–Obama and Rodham lied repeatedly for weeks about Benghazi.
Truly it can be said Rodham lied, people died.
—the whole toppling of Qaddafi thing was Rodham’s idea. She pushed it, arranged it.
Yeah!
I pray Carson wins the nomination. Unless something emerges about him, I would like to see him contrasted with the lying Clintons.
Doug Giles over at townhall today has basically the same take: no one cares about the blatant lying and if they do it is explained away by the MSM. He also predicts, and is depressed about, a sure Clinton presidency.
no one cares about the blatant lying and if they do it is explained away by the MSM:
We are a foolish people grown fat and fearful during the long peace.
TWICE! And probably THRICE!
The support of Democrat voters for Hillary is no different than their support for Ted Kennedy nearly 50 years ago after he killed Mary Jo. People who vote for Democrats have only one moral standard — does it help the party gain or keep power. Period.
Democrat voters do not care about rape, manslaughter, sexual assault, sexual harassment, bribery, crimes or constitutional violations. They NEVER have. The examples go on and on and on.
Democrat voters define morality in terms of power. They are the moral children of Lenin and have been for most of our lifetimes. The support for Hillary, no matter what, is perfectly normal for them.
It’s okay to lie about global warming to get a carbon policy. It’s okay to lie about the provisions of Obamacare. It’s okay to lie about anything. It’s okay for powerful Democrats to commit even the most heinous crimes imaginable. Democrat voters don’t care. They never have.
We see this type behavior as sick and disgusting. They view it as perfectly moral. In fact, for them, to do anything else would be immoral.
Just to add — Dem voters don’t care about the wholesale murder of babies. They don’t care if Iran gets nukes. The don’t care about the murder of Israelis.
These are people who love Che and Fidel and the Sandinistas and Chavez. No matter their horrific crimes and repression.
They not only do not care if Tea Party supporters are slandered, harassed, intimidated, and the victim of crimes, they applaud the criminals! Again, we see this as morally despicable. Their view of morality is all about power to the party.
They have never cared about morality the way normal people do. Theirs is the sick morality of marxists.
stan:
First of all, you are describing leftists, not most liberals I know (and I know plenty of them, including myself until the first years of the 21st century). Most liberals are misinformed by the MSM, or are LIVs; they are unaware of the truth for the most part, not excusing it.
Secondly, let’s be clear: Ted Kennedy did not kill Mary Jo Kopechne in the usual way that phrase is used. It is probably the case that he negligently failed to try sufficiently to save her, left the scene of the accident, and then lied to cover up those facts.
There’s PLENTY there to condemn. But when you say someone killed someone, although I suppose you could mean accidentally or even negligently was responsible for their death (which appears to be the case with Kennedy and Kopechne), it sounds like you mean something worse.
Georges Says:
October 25th, 2015 at 2:26 am
“Doctrine of moral relativism.” I’m not so sure that this is truly taken and used as a doctrine , but really only as a political weapon by leftists. Their political opponents are never forgiven and never given excuses for their (oftentimes made-up ) transgressions. People like Schumer Obama and Clinton would and do attack their enemies citing principles that become strangely quaint, foggy, relative, barely significant notions when one of their people or policies are the focus of attention. They are real pros at manipulating this moral relativism tool.
I think this is very accurate.
Also, I appreciate neo’s distinction between knowingly immoral Leftists and ignorant Liberals — although the truth is out there if they would bother to look for it, or even “connect the dots” in what is easily visible.
I seesawed between Dems and Republicans for years, even voted Green and Libertarian a couple of times, until driven to the Right by the weight of the observable evidence that the Dem Party leadership (not all the members) was hopelessly corrupt and malevolent, and that the majority of the “objective” Press were just peachy with it.
Spotted in the NY Daily news coverage of the Benghazi hearings, an article on the topic of “10 movie villains that Trey Gowdy most resembles”.
Bush calls for the election of the Donald.
Translation: it has become necessary for the elites to dissolve the people ….
Just so we’re clear, what is the theory here? That the CIA or someone had the video made just in case they needed to upset Muslims–and then after the attack rolled out the film to excuse incompetence?
I just don’t see a scenario where the US being behind the film wholesale makes any sense.
The theory a year after Benghazi happened was that the State Department setup the attack on Benghazi embassy, because they were trading arms through Qatar and Libya and maybe Turkey too. The SecState removed all bodyguards from the embassy.
There’s a lot of potential interpretations for that. Perhaps HRC was trying to set up Hussein for a Downfall, but the Downfall came for Hillary instead.
The video was said to be commissioned by the government, by the SecState herself actually. Their response was pretty much the same no matter what happened, arrest the film maker. They had their stories already lined up, but what they intended for that is hard to say.
If people recognize that the M Sewer Media is the enemy, why do they not get rid of their enemy by hurting them?
It seems an obvious thing in war that if the enemy shows themselves, you get rid of them.
Neo,
Liberals do not care to find out the truth about whether Clinton raped because it would not change their vote. They do not care what Hillary did. It wouldn’t change their vote.
LIBERALs know that babies are murdered for their parts. They do not care. They know the Tea Partiers were the victims of a criminal conspiracy. They do not care.
All Democrats voted for Kennedy and Hastings and Barry and the Fords in Memphis. They voted for Dodd and Kennedy because they didn’t care if they raped a waitress.
Liberals and all other Democrats do not care about Benghazi or Lerner or Fast Furious or Obamacare lies or Obama’s abuses of power. Not just leftists. Everyone who votes Democrat knows enough to have a responsibility to learn the truth, but they simply do not care enough to learn because they know it won’t matter to their vote.
All Democrats support the corruption in Chicago, Detroit, Boston, NY, Cal, St Louis, and every other Dem stronghold. They don’t care. It’s not just leftists who lack any moral compass, it is ALL Democrats. There is no distinction between marxists and liberals when it comes to voting for Hillary despite all her crimes. There is no distinction between marxists and liberals in their support for Obama despite his crimes and lawlessness. There is no distinction between them in their support for Bill Clinton in the 90s. The only thing that any of them care about is power.
If there is a difference between marxists and liberals in their support for criminals and corrupt Democrat officials, please list those politicians who did not get the support of liberals because of their criminality. Where do we see liberals stand up for morality and honesty and integrity that distinguishes them from leftists?
Examples please.
Is the theory that the consulate had gone rogue? Or just that someone in State wanted to liquidate the agents to ensure silence? In that case, the email from Hillary to her daughter would be, what? a plant to throw the trail off?
Benghazi Fiction: http://politicalomnivore.blogspot.com/2013/06/illuminoimia-ch2-what-really-happened.html
There simply isn’t any way to dismiss the evil that liberals are be trying to argue that they are brain dead stupid and mindlessly ignorant.
They aren’t that stupid and they aren’t really ignorant. They pretend not to know because it gives them cover with people like you. But they know. They just don’t care. It could never change their vote.
Whenever a moral person is presented with evidence which, if true, would require action, the moral person investigates. The liberal never does. Because the liberal isn’t really a moral person.
stan:
Examples? Me. And most of the people I know.
I don’t expect to convince you, and I’ll stop trying, because I have no interest in wasting my time.
But “brain dead stupid and mindlessly ignorant” not only never described me, it’s starting to become perilously close to describing you, or at least to describing the point of view you’re pushing here.
I stand with Stan
But “brain dead stupid and mindlessly ignorant” not only never described me, it’s starting to become perilously close to describing you, or at least to describing the point of view you’re pushing here.
Whoo hoo. Sharper tongue than you’d use on your Libtard ‘friends.’
Do not keep any pet Libtards and do not be any Libtard’s pet or your are … an enabler.
Like it or not you’ll have to fight.
Neo,
Examples where you and you liberals friends acted ‘morally’ and leftists did not.
For example, you and all your friends knew that the Clinton family solicited bribes for pardons. You knew it. Your friends knew it. These crimes should have put the Clintons in prison.
Liberals didn’t care. Don’t care today. But they knew and they know.
Are you arguing that you didn’t know? Didn’t read the paper? Your friends didn’t know? C’mon. Address the question. Give me examples of where liberals are moral in their voting. Where they didn’t support the Democrats because of criminal behavior.
Examples where liberals, distinguished from leftists, had the morals to stand up and say NO, we aren’t going to support the corruption and criminality just to keep power.
It’s not just leftists who lack any moral compass, it is ALL Democrats.
They are all guilty, although not to the same degree.
The Leftist alliance is very good at purging from their organization, anyone who adheres to heresy, meaning non Leftist ideals.
Lieberman is merely one of the more high water mark individuals that they purged.
People like Neo who didn’t believe in the lies of Authority to begin with and always had suspicions about the Authority, are not representative of Democrats. The true liberals in the Democrat party are less than the total homosexuals in the Democrat party, just to give an example.
https://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/government-black-helicopters/
Something related to what Eric here talks about.
I’m happy to see that Breitbarters who were at the meeting have provided some appropriate reviews on Google +, Yelp and Facebook. In terms of Google + there are now 16 new one star reviews from our members. Strangely, this has not moved their overall rating off 4 stars average, but it should soon. If you have a Gmail account, I encourage you to add your review to the mix. We are activists, how hard is it to write a review? Do not think the owner can take your review down easily . . . he cannot.-one commenter on meetup
I’m collating it at my link because there is more than two of them (links) and spam bot here could begin filtering.
stan:
My moral compass was exactly the same when I was a liberal as it is now.
Most of the liberals I know are very moral people in their private lives, and they believe that voting for Democrats puts in place policies that are most likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I strongly disagree, but that’s what they sincerely think.
They tend to get their news either in a very perfunctory way (LIVs), though headlines for example; or they read totally liberal sources of news and opinion (sometimes not even knowing how much of a bubble they are in). Most of the people they know think the same way as them (including their professors, who are supposed to be smart people). There is little to challenge their belief system except they know there’s this thing out there called Fox News that’s a far-out weirdo lying cable news network that only crazies watch.
Some liberals (most of the ones I know) are very smart. But they’re not all that interested in politics, and don’t apply their brainpower all that much to it in a critical thinking or curious kind of way. They also don’t necessarily agree with all the policies Democrats have voted in, nor approve of all Democratic politicians.
Demonizing these people doesn’t do a particle of good. I know that everyone on the right is frustrated lately, and there’s a lot of despair and anger going around (I share it). But I don’t think the stan of a few years ago would agree with the stan of today. See this, for example.
In sum, you are now dismissing your opponents as evil.
[Long one for me; I apologize in advance]
I’ve got to second some of stan’s points here. I’ve followed this blog – – my favorite blog by far- – since at least 2012. Unlike Neo, I’m a ‘born and bred’ conservative, as are many southerners and other red-staters. Because of this background, my experience with liberals and leftists among the people with whom I associate has been somewhat limited, mainly to people I encounter professionally (law), although I also learned long ago that the vast majority of people employed in the fields of education and government also identify as ‘liberals’. I have a few friends who identify as liberal, but no really close ones (because I no longer feel that I can trust the judgment of any liberal in a pinch). I’ve had one law partner – now retired- who I know all too well and he is the only admitted Marxist I’ve ever really known. Like I said, I’ve had limited exposure to the left side of the political spectrum.
I’ve learned a lot from Neo – – and from many of the other regulars here- – about the left in general, but not that much about “liberalism” as distinct from “leftism”. And Neo, before you get irritated with me as well: I’ve read many passages by you in which you discuss and try to explain the difference (mere liberals ‘just want to be nice’ and ‘do good’, and ‘feel good about themselves’; they genuinely believe that government is a force for good in this world, they love peace and hate war; they’re often LIV-ish; they live in a bubble, etc.). As my mother-in-law used to say, “I hear you”. However, to me the distinction you draw is without a difference other than in degree. I submit that it’s beyond dispute that there is a polititical spectrum and that liberals themselves proudly acknowledge being on the left side of that spectrum. At what point on the spectrum does a mere liberal become a leftist? Is it not a matter of degree?
The older I get the more I believe that “left is left and right is right” and NEVER the twain shall meet.
Bill Clinton was and is a despicable human being, yet liberals happily elected and then reelected him. Say what you will about killing but Ted Kennedy surely committed involuntary manslaughter, at the very least. That’s not only killing, as its a form of homicide (as you know). The Great Society destroyed the black family. Obama. Reid. I could go on. Liberals supported and still support all of this. I’m not damning them and I don’t think Stan intended to either. However I do bemoan the fact that they have done, and continue to do, so much harm to the country I love. You yourself know far better than I that the time for choosing sides in this ‘cold civil war’ is upon us. Liberals need to change and embrace Enlightenment-style liberty instead of their daily dose of propaganda.
Sorry for the rant; no offence intended. [And sorry for any typos; this was finger-pecked on the iPhone]
carl in atlanta:
I have the advantage of having known many liberals and having known many leftists, even socialists and communists. This was true starting back when I was a little girl. And I knew them very very well, not just to say hi to in a perfunctory manner.
Let me say here and now that there are HUGE differences. Not only that, but not all liberals are alike, and not all leftists are alike.
It’s a huge and weighty topic. But I have some general guidelines for you.
Most (not all but most) of the liberals I know are not especially political people. Of course, some liberals are very political, but the majority of those probably come under the definition “leftist” rather than liberal, whatever they call themselves. So that’s one difference: degree of political involvement and interest. Leftists are much more likely to be activists, as well.
Another difference is attitude towards the other side. A leftist virtually always demonizes the other side, and although some liberals do, it’s usually not to the same degree, and many liberals don’t. There are a number of liberal friends I have who will talk to me calmly, and listen to me calmly, and take in what I have to say whether they agree with me or not (sometimes they agree with me on certain issues).
Have you ever read Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed or The Quest for Cosmic Justice? Both are the best descriptions of the sort of liberal I’m talking about, and why they think liberalism and not conservatism is the best way to maximize good in the world. They are both excellent, excellent books.
There’s also a coldness and a hardness I have perceived in many leftists I have known as compared to liberals (this goes back to my youth, too). It’s something you feel on a gut level. Another thing I’ve noticed is that leftists seem far far more interested in power, and more motivated by it: having it, getting it, keeping it, using it. Liberals often don’t think in terms of power at all; many seem oblivious to it, except a certain kneejerk idea that powerful people (all on the right, no doubt) exploit poor people and that it’s bad.
Some liberals (most of the ones I know) are very smart. But they’re not all that interested in politics, and don’t apply their brainpower all that much to it in a critical thinking or curious kind of way.
They do know about Neo, do they not, and why she converted. That is an opportunity for them to check their premises. But they prefer to believe in the comfort of their religion and no not challenge the powers that be or their authorities. If a Muslim converted to Christianity, wouldn’t other Muslims start to question why this happened? Which is why they kill heretics, to stop that line of questioning.
But to the loyal adherents of the Leftis death cult, do they question? Do they wonder why people have converted? Do they, not themselves, wonder why it is that people would convert from the “good” religion of the Left to the evil religion of the non Left? If they respond that they are a political system, not a religion, then why does Neo say that a political adherent and loyalist is not interested in politics? Because one can be a believer in a death cult without having any worry about “politics”.
There’s also a coldness and a hardness I have perceived in many leftists I have known as compared to liberals (this goes back to my youth, too). It’s something you feel on a gut level.
These differences are merely one of status in the hierarchy of their organization. You have the CEO and the owners, money men and stock majority owners, and you have the middle managers. Then at the bottom you have the small fry workers, the salesmen, and the McDonald service people. The thing is… they all work in the same company and take orders from the same chain of command.
So all these differences don’t impact the war much.
There’s also a difference in ambition between the zealots/fanatics on one side of the religion vs the moderates or lukewarm believers on the other side. Again, that makes little difference in a war, because the lukewarm believers aren’t going to Disobey or Kill the zealots/fanatics. They aren’t physically or mentally, let alone theologically, inclined.
If this conflict was about politics, then some people being hardcore believers in political power and some other lukewarm people that don’t care much about politics, might create a dividing line. But this conflict isn’t about politics.
Ymarsakar:
If you’re not curious, you’re not curious. Some have asked me and talked to me about it, but they are not interested enough to listen to a lengthy explanation; politics just bores them. My “conversion” is about as interesting to them as if I’d converted to Buddhism or something, and probably much less interesting, come to think of it. They don’t see it as relevant to them; I always was seen as a bit eccentric and interested in esoteric things. There is no motivation for them to listen to a whole lot, and since they don’t identify with my story (not having gone through a similar experience, not having read or been exposed to the same things I’ve gone through and been exposed to in terms of reading), they tire of it.
What would motivate their interest, if they’ve never been especially interested in politics before? To them, I’m a mere curiosity. That’s the majority. A few have asked deeper questions, but unless they’ve spent many months reading my book and article recommendations, nothing will change—and they’re not interested enough to do that.
I would have been the same as they, too, if someone had just told me about the fact that that person had changed politics. Why would I have been especially interested beyond a certain mild curiosity? Why would it have resonated with me?
No, a political change experience is very personal to that person and very hard to convey to another person who hasn’t been through something similar. And not being all that interested is not some sort of intellectual or moral failing, it’s just a lack of curiosity on that topic.
The left, of course, counts on that fact, uses that fact, plays on the fact. The left is aware. That’s another difference between left and most liberals. Most liberals think it is about politics. They don’t understand what the left is up to.
Ymarsakar:
In other words, to generalize—the liberals are the pawns, the leftists are the chess players.
There’s a difference re what we were discussing here: their morality and their knowledge, as well as their intent. In the end, though, liberals serve the leftists, but unknowingly for the most part, and unintentionally. We’re talking about moral culpability, left vs. liberals.
Reuters and the AP are well known propaganda arms of the international Leftist alliance, which is slightly different from the Left in the US mostly in who they employ as members *language barriers*. In this case though, AP unites the journalists across the world, under the Left.
Some have asked me and talked to me about it, but they are not interested enough to listen to a lengthy explanation; politics just bores them.
Many things can be explained away by saying “they didn’t know”, although it’s a weak platform all in all. However, what cannot be explained away is their deception, aimed at themselves and other people when they claim to be “liberals”. How can a person claim to be a “liberal” as in someone that believes in liberty of a sort, not have any curiosity or clue about politics, which affect liberty directly?
That’s like someone claiming to be part of the US military, a veteran, but then you notice he never served one hour in the US military.
People can claim ignorance for a lot of things, but not for the deception that they have embraced. This doesn’t require that they “know anything”.
They don’t see it as relevant to them
That’s probably because they think they don’t believe in a religion. When they first deceive themselves, the rest comes pretty easy. They always think it’s the other inferior person that falls for religions, right.
What would motivate their interest, if they’ve never been especially interested in politics before?
Why would someone call themselves a liberal, if they had no interest in the Democrat party, the Leftist alliance, or even liberty itself?
That would be almost like me saying I self identity with the community that does martial arts, then later say I’m not interested in spending any time learning any fighting or H2H or martial arts stuff…. why would that make any more sense than these “liberals” you are describing?
Self identity is a serious business, people don’t call themselves a name without belief and that belief has a foundation to it. They certainly don’t up and join a cult because “they don’t care to know anything”. They knew enough to join the cult, after all, and to adhere to the cult’s rules. There are rules, too. If they were as ignorant of politics as that, they would have violated a whole slew of Leftist rules by now, yet they do not… they toe the line. They get enough information to know what their orders are and obey it, yet deceive themselves into thinking they are ignorant and have no idea what’s going on.
I would have been the same as they, too, if someone had just told me about the fact that that person had changed politics.
But you weren’t the same as them. You didn’t have time to dive deep into the history of reality, but once you saw the hints, connected the dots, and had some time to think, you began considering subject matter like Vietnam. However, you were anti Authoritarian before this ever came about. You are thus such an anomaly and rarity, that your own experiences do not apply to the rest of humanity all that often.
Of course back then information was gatekeeped by the Left via their MSM talking propaganda heads. There was no internet for you to pick up rumours or to talk to crazy unorthodox people like me, or to talk to polymaths and other “self educated individuals” about the stuff you believed in.
That is not the case now.
In the end, though, liberals serve the leftists, but unknowingly for the most part, and unintentionally.
There is a point beyond where people obeying orders can say “I didn’t know what I was doing, I was only obeying orders”. They knew enough to know where the orders came from and why they should obey it. Eventually, they will figure out what the orders mean, since they’re carrying out those orders. It takes a lot of time and effort to block that, to stay ignorant. Which is what some of the people here are noticing and referring to. It takes more effort to support one’s self identity of being a “liberal” while ignoring all the anti liberty things going on, then it is to “learn politics”.
People who defected from Communist Russia talked about all kinds of mental tricks they would do to maintain their belief in Stalin, Lenin, and the rest. If they lacked an alternative way of thinking, a different language and culture, they would go through endless loops “not hearing the screams” and going about life “not knowing what they should know”. That’s because their job and life requires them to maintain the rules and enforce them even, but they still must work hard to be ignorant of the screams.
Ymarsakar:
I’ll try one more time to explain.
You are speaking from a certain point of view and a certain body of knowledge that is very different from that of the politically uninvolved. They are skating on the surface of political things without knowing it—without knowing what’s important to their lives, or where it all might take them. “Liberty” is a word that means to them, for the most part, something they’ve always had, something strong and not vulnerable to being lost. So why be all that interested in it? I don’t think most liberals even think of the roots of the word; I certainly never did till much later.
I see my own interest in politics and my political change as partly a result of some difference in me to begin with—I was more interested in things such as law, for example, than the average person, since I had gone to law school. But I was NOT interested in politics nor in history, for much of my life. I’ve written about why and how I became interested (it’s in the “a mind is a difficult thing to change” essays), but part of it was that I found myself alone in a strange city with quite a bit of time on my hands and a computer, AND 9/11 had just happened and caught my attention. But for that particular combination of things—9/11, my prior interest in things like law, being alone in a strange city, having more than usual time on my hands, and having access to wider sources of information through the internet—I don’t think my political change would have happened.
Now, maybe it would have, but more slowly. I don’t know. I think that, sooner or later, if things get bad enough, a lot more liberals could undergo a political change, but by then it will be too late.
Have you read those two Sowell books I recommended to “carl of atlanta”? If not, I highly recommend them to you. I think they explain liberals better than anything I could write.
As another person who changed sides — like Churchill, from right to left, and back to the right again (re-ratted as it were) — I can fault myself, at least for one thing:
I didn’t do due diligence in finding out the truth.
It was more comfortable, easier, and yes, SMUGLY, to stay with the bien-pensants (soi-disant) than to risk ostracism and social/professional persecution by becoming one of the Hated Ones: a conservative. So, Neo, I don’t know about your friends and relations, so I’ll just say about myself that it was a combination of being misled and lied to (in the earlier phase) and being lazy and cowardly (in the later phase).
Laziness and cowardice are at the bottom of this willful ignorance, I think. At the bottom of all the fine rationalizations. An old saying from the 1930s had it, “The Communist tail wags the lazy liberal dog.” And it is WILLFUL.
I have engaged in prolonged, painfully slippery debates with liberal pals (I know a boatload here in NYC, many of them for decades) as well as liberal family members, and there’s one thing that is bloody obvious: They. Don’t. Want. To. Know.
Like a toddler clenching his teeth against the spoon and turning his head away with a convulsive jerk, they resist, actively, any effort to present cognitively dissonant information. It’s really extraordinary.
I’ll say, too, that this willful ignorance is a serious dereliction in our duties as American citizens. And for that, I do fault myself and other libs. And I knew back then that I was blocking anything I didn’t want to hear, and ashcanning anything I didn’t want to read.
At some point, they have to take some responsibility for collaborating.
Apparently some people here live in a very deep complex part of America. In the America where I live (which also happens to be statistically the most educated county in the country), there are plenty of people that don’t follow politics or even the evening news but do go out to vote every 4 yrs without the faintest idea of who/what they are voting for. They vote Democrat because that’s what the cool people on TV tell them is the right, smart thing to do. It really is just as simple as that. They are not evil even though what they voted for has led to some very awful circumstances. Is a lamb being led to slaughter, evil? There is a reason leftists think of liberals as useful idiots. When thinking of the scene in Whittaker Chamber’s book – where he is sitting at the table wondering why leftist-minded people can’t see Communists for what they really are and concludes it is because their beliefs are the same – those people were politically minded people. Not the people who never look at at a newspaper. You can be very ignorant and uninformed without being stupid and/or evil. In fact, referring to people that way is what the left does all the time.
A clue: people call themselves liberal because maybe they want marijuana legalized and maybe because they are for gay marriage and maybe they think women have the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy and mostly because they think Republicans are rich uptight white men that want to run other people’s lives and don’t care about poor people. They wouldn’t know what a classical liberal was even after you explained it to them.
Neo: I’ll read the Sowell books, thanks. I will say that I agree with Beverly that “at some point liberals need to take some responsibility for collaborating.” IMO that point was the reelection of BHO, if not the reelection of Bill Clinton.
Hillary looms; it’s past time for some honest introspection and intellectual honesty. Liberty cannot be taken for granted and I trust that everyone here reacts like I do when they hear someone rotely recite that old saw, “It’s a free country!” “No”, I always think to myself (and only sometimes say out loud, coward that I often am), “it most certaintly is not.”
They vote Democrat because that’s what the cool people on TV tell them is the right
There’s a limit to the excuse, “they were just following orders”. And it’s about run out by now.
“Liberty” is a word that means to them, for the most part, something they’ve always had, something strong and not vulnerable to being lost.
That’s another self deception they utilize against themselves and the world. Slaves that think they are free.
They may have inherited something from their ancestors, because it was passed on unbroken for several generations. Does that give them the right to sell this inheritance and the future into slavery, just because they themselves sold their souls for some material glories?
As for Sowell, I’ve heard about the reviews but have not read his book. From the reviews, it is little different than the description of fanatics and other collaborators in a totalitarian system, how they justify things, religiously and conveniently.
Occam’s Beard Says:
April 26th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
From time to time I try to challenge my own beliefs.
Me too. As a constitutive scientist, in politics as in chemistry, I use my model to predict outcomes. If the predictions are not borne out, then the model needs revision or rejection. If they are, then the model seems, provisionally, to have utility. For example, I consider feminist and environmental groups inter alia not to be advocacy groups but rather to be fundamentally communist front organizations organized to undermine America. That model then predicts that those groups won’t squawk about what should be sweet spot matters for them if the matter has no utility for undermining America. Feminist groups don’t care about women in Islamic countries, AGWers don’t care of Chinese CO2 — exactly as the model predicted. So the model survives the test. The alternative model predicts that those groups would be up in arms in each case, and that clearly is at variance with the data.
In the 2012 link Neo linked to here, there were some interesting comments. Comments which would have been hard to stomach for me had I read them as they were written, but these days that doesn’t matter so much.
Occam’s Beard Says:
April 26th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
From time to time I try to challenge my own beliefs.
Me too. As a constitutive scientist, in politics as in chemistry, I use my model to predict outcomes. If the predictions are not borne out, then the model needs revision or rejection. If they are, then the model seems, provisionally, to have utility. For example, I consider feminist and environmental groups inter alia not to be advocacy groups but rather to be fundamentally communist front organizations organized to undermine America. That model then predicts that those groups won’t squawk about what should be sweet spot matters for them if the matter has no utility for undermining America. Feminist groups don’t care about women in Islamic countries, AGWers don’t care of Chinese CO2 — exactly as the model predicted. So the model survives the test. The alternative model predicts that those groups would be up in arms in each case, and that clearly is at variance with the data.
The model that the moderates on the Left are not guilty or merely non evil, would have to defeat one test. They would have to Disobey Orders from the Left, orders such as what to do, what to think, and which patriots they should turn into the death squads. If they could disobey those orders, it would mean they weren’t evil. But if they did obey those orders, it would mean they were evil.
The people who see no evil amongst the moderates, just think that when push comes to shove, they won’t be turned in by their friendly neighborhood (park rangers were like tha too) moderates. Given ancillary evidence in Europe of people obeying the Invasion policies, as well as the entire community leaders of Rot England obeying Evil, it is not a time of disobedience. American examples can be explained away, evil cannot be explained away however using arguments.
The point of propaganda, or rhetoric, is to use the power of emotion to reveal or veil facets.
The fact that people talk about Northern Exposure in 2012 and I have no idea now nor then, what that means, is probably a good example of how disconnected I am from the public consciousness, the mainstream rhetoric and propaganda matrixes. Although looking at the timestamp of the seasons online, it is also a generational issue. But Game of Thrones wouldn’t apply for that, and I don’t watch or care about it either, including how many people online like to spoil it as a way to initiate a cyber attack.
Distance is necessary for accurate research.
You are speaking from a certain point of view and a certain body of knowledge that is very different from that of the politically uninvolved.
Not quite. Back when the Iraq War started in 2003, I was like most other people indoctrinated in the Leftist school of obedience, against the war. When someone I knew mentioned that the regime change in Iraq would stop a lot of human atrocities, I changed ship. That’s because I was actually interested in liberty or what the Democrats claimed they were for, or what this American culture claims it was for…
They, the Leftists and Democrat moderates you speak of, Neo, are deceiving themselves, first and foremost. They are about as non evil as people who steal valor and glory from the Vietnam generation by claiming to be a veteran and getting the benefits, while not serving or working for the Communists.
That’s “non evil” all right.
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/muslim-neighbours-turned-against-christians-after-isis-captured-mosul-says-iraqi-priest-651298
As for people that think I’m talking in hypothetical fantasies, this is merely an example of what happens in the world. Americans are not immune to the World. It is easy for the Left to duplicate that behavior here, since their network in Rot England has most definitely given them the template and schematics.
Beverly says “I didn’t do due diligence in finding out the truth.”
Due diligence is no longer even necessary. The evidence of blatant corruption and criminality is right in front of their faces. The truth is known. They don’t care.
Every Mass liberal who voted for Teddy knew all about the manslaughter and the lies. They didn’t care.
Every liberal who has voted for Alcee Hastings and Marion Barry and the sexual predators among Mass congressmen knew what they did. They often celebrated the depravity.
In Chicago, they know that the machine is hopelessly corrupt. As it is in Detroit and NY and Boston and New Orleans and California, etc. They know. They even know the Dems in Chicago have political alliances with the criminal gangs. Liberals don’t care. Not as long as Ds keep getting into office.
They know a lot. Even when they try not to know.
Every person with above room temp IQ knows that the Clintons are dishonest, corrupt, and depraved. They don’t care. If they don’t know details it is because they have chosen not to know — even made an effort not to know. That’s morally culpable (unless).
They’ve heard about the PP videos. If they never bothered to find out about the details, it is because they didn’t want to know. Because they knew that they were going to vote D no matter what. And that is morally culpable. (unless)
We can go down a long list of horribles that Obama has committed but the lies about Obamacare suffice. Everyone knows about the lies. Everyone. Liberals don’t care.
And the reason they don’t care is because there simply isn’t any crime, corruption, rape, or depravity that the Dem candidate could commit that would keep your liberal friends from voting Dem. They consider the GOP evil. So in their moral calculus, voting Dem is moral, no matter what.
You say I’m wrong. Show me evidence. Show me an example. There’s lot of evidence to support what I’ve written. The list is long.
Show me some contrary evidence.
You try to tell me they are simply ignorant. Really, really, really ignorant. I don’t believe your friends are that ignorant, although I understand why you want to believe it. Of course, even if true, it does not excuse them from blame. They are still responsible, still culpable.
stan:
What on earth are you talking about? How could someone “show you” evidence that someone who voted for these people either (a) didn’t know what you thought they knew; or (b) thought it was an exaggeration or a lie; or (c) knew about it, cared and disapproved, but voted for that person because they still thought that person holding office would lead to greater good for a greater number of people.
Of course one can’t prove those things or cite evidence for them. One can merely state them for this person or that person that one knows personally.
And by the way, did you read that comment of yours from years ago, and contrast it with the far more extreme message you’re putting out now? You have become what you criticized back then.
Well, my experience was and still is quite different from yours.
I don’t think I was either a coward or lazy. I wasn’t into politics, but I was reasonably well-informed, or at least I thought I was because I was making the effort to read the paper every day in some depth. That’s what I mean by saying I wasn’t lazy. The paper, however, was the Boston Globe, and every few days the NY Times as well (for most of the years I’m describing they were not owned by the same group). In addition, I read the New Yorker every single week, pretty much cover to cover. I thought that was a nice spread of viewpoints but of course it was liberal all the way; I just wasn’t aware of that. My unawareness was not willful, but more akin to naivete. I also was never interested in newscasters or which network was which. I didn’t watch much TV news—certainly not every night or close to it, unless something special was happening, and then I watched a great deal. But the TV news I did watch involved no sense on my part of the differences in the coverage among the stations (of course, in those days the coverage wasn’t so very different from station to station, and Fox wasn’t born until quite late in the game).
As for cowardice, I know it wasn’t that for me. In fact, I was also very naive about the reaction a person might get if he/she became a conservative in a liberal world, and that’s because no one I knew had political discussions as a rule. In fact (and this may be hard to believe, but this is the way it was for me) I didn’t know the political affiliation of most of my friends at that point. I actually assumed some might be Republican (even though, as it turns out, they were not). I remember the day after Clinton was elected to his first term, I was in a group of about six friends and I was surprised to discover, when the topic of Clinton came up (don’t remember how it came up; that it came up at all in this group was somewhat unusual), everyone was happy about his victory. I thought it was a coincidence that they all were Democrats—that’s how unaware I was of the social side of politics back then (and at the time, I was living in an area where the party affiliation was roughly equal). If you had asked me at that time whether my own brother was a Democrat or a Republican, I don’t think I could have answered with any certainty.
That’s the way it was. I wasn’t afraid of changing and afraid of ostracism or what people would think of me because I was unaware that could be the possible consequence. And so I went through my political change reading sources online I didn’t even know were conservative (I had never heard of the Telegraph or the Guardian before, for example, both British papers, and was reading both and ultimately inferred their political leanings but did not know them at the outset). It was only ex post facto that I realized that the periodicals I agreed with tended to be the conservative ones.
But I don’t think it would have stopped me from reading them had I known. I’ve always been one to try to challenge my own point of view with the opposite side (maybe it’s the law student in me?). And if a line of reading leads me to change my mind, so be it. I pursued the change when it happened, reading and reading more and more, because it was so interesting. I didn’t shy away from it. I also don’t like to be lied to, and once I determined that some of the sources on which I’d always relied on to tell the truth had sometimes been lying to me, that made me less automatically accepting of what they were saying.
Another way in which my experience is different now from Beverly’s is that some of my liberal friends do listen to me. Not the majority, but quite a few. I can think of three offhand.
I don’t believe your friends are that ignorant, although I understand why you want to believe it.
If they were really and truly ignorant, they would be very close to neutral on many positions. But belonging to an organization like the Leftist death cult, cannot work for someone truly ignorant. That is because if they were that ignorant, they would break all the rules and be punished for it.
When 2001 happened, I didn’t know the difference between the D and R behind people’s names when I watched the news. Oh, I knew there were political parties and which one was the “good” one and the “heartless” one, but that is an example of true ignorance. What Neo and others have described here aren’t ignorant voters, these are something else entirely. They can’t go for 10, 20, 30 years and not know “something”.
If I paid attention to the news and made moral and ethical decisions with as little as I knew back then… what does that say for older people that have had decades to think on their decisions… yet are some too “ignorant” to make one still? Of course they have chosen their faction and side, that’s why they Obey the Left.
Of course applying my own standards to humanity at large is rather pointless, and it’s something I take note and care to point out when Neo does that, using her individual expressive anti authoritarian instincts and painting other humans with the same brush.
You have become what you criticized back then.
Stan was talking about dismissing Republicans as evil in order not to think about the issue, meaning that Republicans weren’t evil to begin so dismissing them as evil is a way to run away from the foe. When an individual sees evil and recognizes it for what it is, and then calls it out, that is a call to arms or rather a call to justice. It is not merely obeying the authority of a Death Cult in saying and thinking what they tell you to think and say about Republicans.
In fact many anti Leftists are loath to adopt Leftist tricks and or thoughts that would make them similar to the Left, yet does this mean we can’t be against the Libyan war started by Hussein for his own kicks and giggles because the Left was against the Iraq war because they accused Bush of starting it for kicks and giggles? Obviously that is not how it works. The truth is what matters, not the tools or methods used.
For the sake of accuracy, here is the quote in question.
During the Clinton scandals, I corresponded with an ardent liberal. Every time someone like Dick Morris spilled the beans, he immediately became a suspect source. Anyone who was critical of Clinton was, by definition (and catch 22), a biased and unreliable source.
As for arguing with liberals, I think there is something important that can be gained even when it is impossible to change a mind. A very large part of the liberal belief system revolves around the conviction that conservatives are evil, stupid or ignorant. Any time you can make a liberal confront the fact that a moral, ethical, well-reasoned argument supports the conservative position, you chip away at that conviction. You don’t change their mind on the issue that is being argued, but you start to make them confront the reality that they can’t simply dismiss opponents as evil.-S
If there was a moral, ethical, well reasoned argument that supports Leftist positions, that might bolster their belief that they are good and their enemies are evil. Is there such an argument about PlannedProfit’s activities and undercover sting videos released on YOUTUBE that people “don’t know about”?
Most depressing article of the day: Mark Halperin spelling out just why “The Most Likely Next President Is Hillary Clinton”
Ann:
That article of Halperin’s was written for 2 reasons and 2 reasons only.
The first is to buoy up all the Hillary supporters into giving money and spreading themselves around the blogosphere crowing about how great Hillary is.
The second is to demoralize people on the right.
Other than that, Halperin has no idea what will happen a year from now.
But let me also say that anyone who didn’t think Hillary would be a formidable opponent in 2016 with a good chance of winning was not very smart, IMHO. I wrote about Hillary’s possible (maybe even probable) victory here. Republicans should have been planning to fight it for the last three years.
I understand the reasons behind the article, Neo, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong on the details.
And as far as blaming the Republicans for not getting their act together three years ago, even if they had, how would that help in the face of the Trump phenomenon? Speaking of which, there’s a new piece up at Commentary that says that foreign team Trump’s been bragging about may not even exist.
I do wonder what the GOP candidate field would look like right now if Trump hadn’t gone off on his ego trip.
Ann:
I didn’t say I thought Halperin was wrong. He may in fact end up being right, but he doesn’t know what will happen any more than anyone else does.
In fact, though, if you followed my link, I wrote about a month after the election of 2012 that I thought Hillary had an excellent chance of winning in 2016.
John Ringo of Baen had a novel about a woman President producing a Total Evil American Empire, military sci fi. Just putting that out there.
Hilly & Billy back in the White House?
F***. Merely F***, F***, F***.
(Laughter)