Left vs. right: the rules of the game
Commenter “mhjhnsn” writes, in the thread about the Democrats’ reaction to the killing of Baghdadi:
…[W]hat this really says to me is that there is NOTHING that Trump can do to mollify, even for only a day, those who hate him, and this is a fight to the death. Those who think Trump is intemperate and that he should tone it down (people like me, often) need to think hard on that.
They will offer no quarter, no compromise. Think on that, because it is not how we products of American democracy and give-and-take politics tend to view things and we need to recognize reality for what it is–like it or not..
Whether “fight to the death” is literal or metaphorical, the idea is that this is a fight of great intensity in which the left plays only to win. Rule of law, or any mutually-agreed-on process that protects both sides because both sides know that one day one group is in power and the next day the other group may be – that’s over, if in fact it ever existed (the perception certainly was that it existed).
Actually, the far left never played by those rules. But much of the Democratic Party and the vast majority of Americans did, and that give-and-take was operating when I was growing up. But the far left has taken over what was once a group that contained a large number of moderates who are now either pushed way to the side or who are nonexistent in the Democratic Party. Now that the left is fully in the driver’s seat all bets are off, and they aim to (and expect to) be permanently in power, and are determined to do whatever it takes to get to that end.
Thus, the unending Resistance war on Trump. Events such as the killing of Baghdadi can no longer be allowed to have a bipartisan unifying effect.
Much of the anger of the right at NeverTrumpers and others who have issues with Trump related to style, including his style of combat, need to (in the words of the commenter) “recognize reality for what it is – like it or not.” It’s a sad and sorrowful realization, but as time goes on it increasingly seems to be an inevitable realization.
Daniel P. Goldman, “Spengler” sees the fight is to the death:
https://pjmedia.com/spengler/i-killed-my-parents-and-now-i-ask-for-mercy-on-the-grounds-that-im-an-orphan/
” But much of the Democratic Party and the vast majority of Americans did, and that give-and-take was operating when I was growing up. But the far left has taken over ….”
Got a phone call last night from a fellow retired faculty member, (economics). We both joined the college the same year. As I had a sabbatical owed me this past spring, I actually finished teaching last December, though officially retired in June. So I just vanished from campus after the fall semester ’18. Apparently there was some concern among the older and retired faculty that I had been “disappeared” by some nefarious administration action. I reassured him that this was not the case.
The relevance of this story is that he was/is a Democrat, and like most of the faculty of that age and older, what I consider a classic liberal. I disagreed with them all in terms of politics. Yet, as Neo states, there was respect for another viewpoint from them, and what I found interesting from the phone call, concern for a person they disagreed with, but hope was still being treated fairly. The attacks I endured in the last ten years all came from younger, much more radical faculty, and from an administration that itself was now very far left. Academia seems to present a microcosm of what happens in the general society a bit later. Now that these people are in power (at a particular college) they are now in the process to make sure there are no apostates in their midst. Truly totalitarian.
I have said in the past that we need to use the same tactics against the Dems as they use against us, only to have people say “we can’t do that, go down to there level”. That is utter BS. Playing nice is no longer an option. They want me dead and gone, so I fight back. Hard.
LYNN HARGROVE:
Depends what you mean by “same tactics.” Trump fights back hard, but he uses different tactics. I don’t think the same tactics are necessary in order to fight hard, and they are risky and can be counterproductive.
I wonder how many people on the moderate left are being alienated by the extreme left? Probably not enough.
Matthew:
The members of the WalkAway movement represent that group.
During the Iraq War I was debating leftie Christians in an online forum and discovered, after mentioning a Karen Armstrong quote, they refused to grant any difference between George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden. No difference. Flat refused.
I kept saying well, you may not like Bush, but he is an American and basically plays by American rules — free speech, freedom of religion, democracy, that kind of thing. Bin Laden doesn’t. No dice. No difference. Flat refused.
It seemed to me they were intellectually dishonest or entirely blinded by their hatred or both.
Not too many months later, after being harassed and shunned, I left that forum.
Huxley,
See the same with people talking about China trade. It’s presented as at best two equals and at worst Trump is portrayed as the meany and Xi is the sensible world leader.
David Horowitz has been warning conservatives for 20 years that the Left considers itself at war with the Right. If the Right doesn’t react appropriately, he says it will lose.
“will lose”
Kinda late. But what the heck, give it the old college try. Learn to cheat, lie, and steal.
Use what’s missing on the left: beauty. Eros. You’ll find it everywhere in the great books canon of our western heritage. Just look.
I defer to Trump, his instincts about how to conduct himself are/ have served him well. I have cringed from time to time ( had a hard time with the remarks about Carly Fiorina !!! that he made, yet he thought that Stormy was a looker!) Chalk it up to “oh well men”!
Well that might not be necessary. I think that by being categorical, unyielding, and by drawing lines in the sand, you can drive them crazy enough so that they either overreach and are scalded, or they precipitate a violence with authorizes [or morally liberates you for] a response in kind, without your even having had to become corrupt, damned, to the core, like them.
Now, I admit that encouraging the left to chimp-out by in-their-face categorically denying their right to violate your natural rights – no matter what – might seem worse to some people than deceiving your way to a temporary victory. But in my view, that does not solve the root problem, which is: the left’s conviction that it has permission – evolutionary, ideological, or mere “democratic” – to appropriate your existence for their ends.
Somehow, the left in this country has embraced a no-limits ideology; one which may not even have a coherent goal, much less a point of satiety at which they will agree to “this far and no further”.
It’s inherent in the utopian collectivism of the progressive project I think, and in the Marxist definition of “needs” as constantly evolving socially generated desires, rather than biological requirements. Thus their appetites are never really defined, much less capable of being sated. You are always then liable, at risk of being the target of their kaleidoscopic urges . They aim to become gods. Who then are you to say, “This far, and no further: Ever”, to an emergent ‘God’?
Come on Neo … ask Physicsguy about the latest on the EM drive and the Cannae propulsion system. Please … please …. LOL
To fill in what was left out in the sketch DNW, it’s not about the already corrupted parents, but rather seducing their children away from them. Education, in a word. Take it. Steal it, if necessary. I don’t think any other path can work.
“Today” conservatives (people who find themselves on the right simply because the Overton Window has been shifted so much) are at a disadvantage because we really are just trying to live our lives, bettering society by bettering ourselves, and those closest to us, and it never occurs to us to attempt to influence or change others. We really don’t want to do it. I mean, Golden Rule and all. I want to be left alone, so… I leave them alone.
But, I acknowledge that even those who just want to be left alone must attain enough power to ensure they and others are left alone. How to attain that power seems to be the question here.
I don’t believe it is by fighting back exactly as the left does. As Neo says somewhere above, Trump fights back in his own way, plays to his own strengths, in a way that simply confounds the left. They can’t understand it. And I think it’s because Trump speaks enough truth and acts honestly enough that honest people see him for what he is, which is an uncouth, crass, patriotic powerhouse of a man who will fight in the mud for his own. Honest Americans not blinded by hate can see that America is part of Trump’s “own.” That’s why he’s attracting as many as he is, to the bewilderment of those who grant him no positives.
We have to fight back, but we have to do it without losing too much of what is right and good about ourselves. That will be a trick, because such honest men are eviscerated in this political atmosphere. But, I still firmly believe that if enough honest men keep speaking out about the truth, the whole, educated truth, then others not quite as brave will hear and take some heart, and perhaps stand up on their own. Honest people recognize honesty and bravery when they see it.
THAT is a trait I will never give up hope on. Bravery will be our best attribute, without sacrificing ultimate honesty and honor.
I see DNW above this comment shares a similar feeling about how to conduct ourselves.
“Much of the anger of the right at NeverTrumpers”
Though it often gets phrased in terms of the NeverTrumpers’ refusal to fight dirty, I think the emotion comes from somewhere else. It’s about betrayal.
GOP voters picked Donald Trump. Then nearly 63,000,000 Americans picked Donald Trump. And then they won. NeverTrumpers responded to that by refusing to respect not only the will of the voters but the will of the political party they claim to lead. They refuse to grant Donald Trump the allegiance they demanded the voters give to Mitt Romney and others. And some of them have flat out revealed themselves as never really being Republicans or conservatives at all. They were either amoral grifters or liberals who found the Democratic Party insufficiently war-like for their tastes.
The anger at NeverTrumpers comes from the realization that from the refined David French to the hapless hacks like Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot, they were happy to have us on THEIR team but they cannot lower themselves to be on OUR team. Nobody likes being played for a sucker but that’s what the bulk of the GOP/Conservative public has been. Suckers. And the con artists who’ve been playing us for years stopped even pretending we were ever anything else.
Mike
huxley. I’ve seen it. But I’ve pushed back and something odd happens. The person I thought I knew has…some kind of psychic break. Or something. I insist that everybody knows Michael Brown’s case wasn’t “hands up, don’t shoot”. and it’s as if they are having a TIA or something.
It’s as if they know it on one level but force it down. When it comes back, it’s …I don’t know. But it’s kind of scary.
(Whatever It Is) I’m Against It!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmXHLHVTjRc
I don’t know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
No matter what it is
Or who commenced it
I’m against it!
Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And even when you’ve changed it
Or condensed it
I’m against it!
I’m opposed to it
On general principles
I’m opposed to it!
(He’s opposed to it)
(In fact, he says he’s opposed to it!)
For months before my son was born
I used to yell from night to morn
“Whatever it is, I’m against it!”
And I’ve kept yelling
Since I first commenced it
“I’m against it!”
their behavior is wagstaffian..
[now, lets see if someone copies that from neo!]
“…but rather seducing their children away from them.”
Exactly. But it’s tough. Their “method” is “if it feels good, do it”. Tremendous appeal to most humans. The conservative philosophy is that “there are things that you may not do – even if they _do_ feel good”. Not as appealing – though necessary.
But…that’s what they’ve done…seduced our children away from the basic philosophy that used to be the dominant philosophy in this country. No mothers in the home leaves the schools as the formers of the concepts of right and wrong, not the parents.
Artfl,
I never did catch Grouchomania, but that was definitely worth seeing! Thanks, and also for the lyrics.
(Too bad it’s so apropos to the present political era, 😥 , but then I think humans has had its share of ornery cusses since we swang down from the trees. LOL 😆 )
(Nobody, including the ghastly “spell-checkers,” knows how to conjugate -ing and -ink verbs anymore. Yes, Virginia, it’s swing, swang, swung. )
Back to your regularly-scheduled programming…. :>)))
Fichte:
https://www.azquotes.com/author/20663-Johann_Gottlieb_Fichte
Magnus on October 28, 2019 at 5:07 pm said:
David Horowitz has been warning conservatives for 20 years that the Left considers itself at war with the Right. If the Right doesn’t react appropriately, he says it will lose.
* * *
Indeed.
See this article from a couple of years ago.
Contains what looks like a full bibliography & ample biographical details.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/11/david-horowitz-journey-left-right/
As others have noted above, it is not necessary to be unethical or immoral or psycopathic (as the Left is) in order to fight back strongly and consistently.
It is necessary to be courageous and persistent.
Good news along those lines:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/28/judge-reverses-ruling-allows-covington-catholics-nick-sandmann-to-sue-washington-post-for-defamation/
Matthew on October 28, 2019 at 4:52 pm said:
I wonder how many people on the moderate left are being alienated by the extreme left? Probably not enough.
neo on October 28, 2019 at 4:56 pm said:
Matthew:
The members of the WalkAway movement represent that group.
* * *
https://pjmedia.com/trending/video-walkaway-founder-brandon-straka-confronts-cnns-april-ryan-youre-the-biggest-liar-in-this-room/
Putting Horowitz’s advice in action.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/black-republican-leader-trump-is-proof-republicans-arent-racist/
huxley,
Well, eventually you became a functioning adult. 😉
In a low-trust setting… like our current one…tit for tat is the only way.
Until new norms are established, the right needs the left to fear that everything commensurate… up to and including law-breaking… is on the table.
This doesn’t mean that actual law breaking is necessary. Strategic use of cheap talk should be sufficient to wind up the crazies as needed.
But nothing will really change until *they* demand that all parties accept the rule of law. They don’t want that … yet. So how do we get there?
Not sure.
As far as I can tell, they don’t *really* believe in individual rights at all. But they hate getting beat up lol
So when they demand recognition of their individual right not to get stomped,.. that’s progress.
The right has to credibly signal to the left that we plan to visit upon them the very same bad things they plan to do to us… until they credibly sue for peace.
The right has been observing non-existent political “rules”… norms that the other side actually does not accept… since the 1960s. It was funny for a good long while but not anymore.
What’s funny *now* is Trump constantly being rude to angry, brittle people who prefer to spend their time punching down at nobodies.
What’s funny now is the *fear* they express at being abused without recourse… like *nobodies*.
Maybe I’m wrong, but isn’t that where norms come from?
That failed *cheap talk* link went to a Wikipedia article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheap_talk
Yes, yes…I denounce myself.
Chalk it up to “oh well men”!
I chalk it up to Demoncrats not liking Republican CEOs.
If the Right doesn’t react appropriately, he says it will lose.
Even if they do react, they will still lose. My strategic insights and tactical conclusions are almost never wrong.
Just as I told GB that the military was being purged by Hussein and that this was a big problem for “Emergency Rule”. Now we have McRaven doing his dance and pop against Trum… haha. Predictable.
DNW on October 28, 2019 at 6:09 pm said:
Come on Neo … ask Physicsguy about the latest on the EM drive and the Cannae propulsion system. Please … please …. LOL
Classical physics professors aren’t cleared nor are they interested in much of this, even assuming they understand it. It uses too much quantum physics.
The only person here that would know about it would be Ymar. But the official sources are the US Naval patents Trum keeps pushing to unclassify, and which of course some have already been unclassified.
Those fighting for individual rights can NOT win by fighting with collectivist strategies – because they then become collectivists.
Rod D says we need a Benedict Option, for Christians to focus more on their families and their own faith, so that AFTER the (inevitable?) crash, Christians have something to offer the non-believers.
He has many good points, but there are many SJW “believers” that are filled with religious zeal. “What’s best for the greater good”. Now I’m thinking too much “ethics” and the unrealistic “trolley problem” is a small but definite contributor to this.
They have a pseudo religion, and they’re winning. They need to lose at the ballot box, and then need to lose their positions in colleges and as K-12 teachers.
Many agree on the problems, tho perhaps not yet enough — yet far too few agree on the right solutions. So such disunity of alternatives protects the current dominant Left Dems in colleges and in the deep state.
Ymar, you know nothing about me, except for the delusional picture you have of me in your mind. I’ve dealt with QM my whole career, and I would guess know a bit more about it than you.
The interesting thing about the EMdrive is that the theoretical framework for the drive is based on the Bohm idea of pilot waves, which has had a checkered career. And you’re right, in that the current thinking of the majority favors the Copenhagen interpretation. Though that is favored view, I don’t think anyone is satisfied that it is correct. The inability to reconcile QM with general relativity points to a major problem in that line of thinking that has not been reconciled.
What I find fascinating is when one takes Madelung’s recasting of the Schroedinger equation in hydrodynamic form (which is compatible with Bohm pilot waves), with the recent effort of Liberati where he proposes spacetime itself is a fluid. We now have a way of reconciling QM with GR via hydrodynamics, and opens the idea of pilot waves rather than probability waves.
Of course the NASA result of a few microNewtons of thrust would have to be repeated and verified many times, but who knows. I have an open mind about it. Do you???
Very good. Not a complaint, but an insight, well formulated.
You are certainly right about schooling. It is very clear that they wish to use their infiltration and control of government schools, and frankly of most other large institutional education establishments, to “build” their own version of the human edifice regardless of the parents’ wishes. The hireling, become the master.
It’s peculiar thing to take a cold hard look at some of the institution dwelling types whose sense of personal value and identity, security, and social standing is so dependent on that perch. And then to consider that they who have fled panicked to the center of the herd for their lives and for any life prospects they hoped to attain, are delusional enough in addition to believe that they are fit to lead.
Now, frankly and in acknowledgement of the reverse of the coin, I could myself, despite what I have said, enjoy some aspects of academia. I liked college a great deal. And I think that it has probably crossed the minds of many that there are even (possibly largely fictional) aspects of an ecclesiastical life, i.e., the English countryside parson, the golfing Catholic parish priest, that might be attractive as well.
But what happens is that it is too often not the healthy and competent who assent to a “cloistered” or shielded life out of duty, but the psychologically neediest and most desperate who are seeking their main, and possibly only, chance.
And then of course, once inside, why, it becomes obvious to them that it is the insider entrusted with the keys who should direct, and shape, and rule; not govern … but rule.
Expertise, specialization primarily, is to be honored, not fetishized.
In fairness I should mention that niche seeking is not exclusive to academia and government, and that plenty in these areas seek to do their duty. It is just that the administrative state and attitude, so dangerous that Roscoe Pound (an early proponent) became skeptical of it long ago; has now gotten completely out of hand.
Your reservations are well founded. You can only withdraw if you are allowed to, either by a tolerant oppressor, or by the fact that there are areas to which you can retreat that are too much trouble for most petty dictators to bother with.
We don’t live on that planet. You could not have a private mass in England during the reign of the Tudors, and no house was safe from bodkin wielding human ferrets thrusting through the wall paneling in search of hidden priests. This in the land of the Magna Carta, and the original castle doctrine.
Look at any topo map from the 1950’s: Every well, windmill, ruined farmhouse and old apple grove is noted. Nowadays I can see the deck on the rear of my house and the BBQ grill on it, from satellite.
You cannot retreat. There is no place to retreat to. The problem isn’t that you are taking up a space they want for some immediate purpose, but that you exist at all.
We have trouble coming to terms with such a mindset. But it is common in human history. And we see chimpanzees (the supposedly peaceful idols at one time of liberals) doing the same thing that tyrannical “progressive” humans do … seeking out, and making war on the inoffensive just because they exist apart. Why should we expect the hooting chimps of the Democrat party to be any different?
DNW, here’s a book (about books!) of considered reflections (not referring to the review title here, but Brann’s book) on the problems we Americans face in education, whether simply as such or contextually as a public matter. Miss Brann also has other worthwhile writings at The Imaginative Conservative, as well as a few videos on youtube if anyone seeks to know more.
This, of course, isn’t for everyone. Nor, I reckon, should it be. But I do think those for whom it is the thing will know, right away. Some few others may take a period of introduction and will then discover what they didn’t realize they needed. Most however, not, only discovering what they already knew: a thing of no interest at all.
“Whether “fight to the death” is literal or metaphorical…”
Today metaphorical. Tomorrow, probably not… but “Answer Unclear. Ask Again.”
The other day, I just happened see a mention of the Boy Scouts, and that brought back memories.
I’m not claiming that I was deep into the program, or that I was accomplished in it, but I do think that I gained from being a Boy Scout.
The Cub, Boy, and Girl Scouts, Sea Scouts, and the other Scouting programs were, it seems to me, a major and (formerly) wholesome institution, a supporting pillar of our traditional society and culture that helped, in a major way, to form the character of many people—both children and adults—for several generations in this country.
It was a stabilizing force.
That is, until this pivotal character forming institution—apparently already weakened by decades of largely invisible internal decay—was overwhelmed, and buckled under attacks from the Left; attacks that were both internal, and external.
Add this key institution to the list of other key traditional institutions and cultural norms here in the U.S. that have weakened, crumbled, been attacked, infiltrated, disrupted, and “fundamentally transformed” by the Left—Education, the Church, the Family, gender roles, our Legal system, the MSM, the Entertainment Industry, Business, etc.
The old traditional crew of our Ship of State gets fewer in number each day, and is passing from the scene, as is their lore.
Meanwhile subversive and radical new ideas and hands are attempting to take over in the pilot house, and the Ship of State is—we as a society are—as a result, being forcibly pushed onto a new course, through storm-tossed, treacherous waters, and towards a new and unknown destination; a course that is out of sight of land, and far away from the safe harbor that we were formerly always able to return to, and to anchor in due to the guidance of our history, our traditions, and our Constitution.
I think we either underestimate, or more reasonably, fail to keep in mind, the hostility of the collectivist-kind to any institution, organization, assemblage, or association no matter how casual, which does not seek to recruit, accommodate, and then refashion its purposes and ends to suit them and what they want.
They live in terror of being left out, because they have no idea how to survive being on their own; and because they believe in the saying that one should keep ‘one’s friends close and one’s enemies closer’: leaving no breathing space to the conservative, and no chance for him to get any footing and put any effective distance between himself and the progressive Appetite Thing.
I have had a kind of objection to hearing that as far as progressives go, “It’s all about power, and nothing else”.
But in the final reduction, and from a certain perspective it undeniably is. It is about them chimping-out, and waging a kind of genetic retaliatory war on those whom they accuse of the crime of “othering” them; by being indifferent to them, or “unwelcoming”.
They will have what they want, because they want it. End of discussion. You will be part of it, because they say so, and they have concluded that your participation as a shock-absorber and social resource is essential to their success. End of Story.
As others here have often noted: They will not back off. They will not stop. And they cannot be brought to see reason, because they are not motivated by reason.
“Other”? That hardly begins to describe it.
Like many here I am pessimistic about the near-term future of the United States, vis a vis politics. There are a lot of reasons, and several have already been stated in this thread. The answer to righting our course lies in the States fighting for their Constitutionally guaranteed right to rule over all but the 14 enumerated powers, but that is not likely to happen. The check against Federal overreach is the States. Along with many other things, the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments gave the Federal government unequal footing in that battle, but I sometimes wonder if the biggest impact comes from our evolution towards urban/suburban living. About 1/3 of our fellow citizens live in only 10 metropolitan areas. The perspective one gets growing up in Cheyenne, Wyoming is very different than one develops living in Brooklyn, New York. Due to the simple nature of living within walking distance of millions of people, a Brooklynite will tend to be much more inviting of civil control. A resident of Cheyenne will have a much better developed understanding of property rights, individual liberties and natural law.
In far too many cases, politician’s fortes are synthetic emotion i.e. “caring,” and deceptive language and, in this era, no politicians employ deceptive language more often, and are better at it, than Democrats.
Thus, Democrat House Speaker Pelosi is talking about holding a vote soon to initiate an “Impeachment Inquiry,” but not a vote to trigger actual Impeachment proceedings, which would have to be initiated by voting on and passing a very specific piece of legislation—an actual “Impeachment Resolution.”
If such an “Impeachment Resolution” were to be passed, then, the President’s defenders would traditionally have access to a number of investigative tools—being able to call witnesses, to question witnesses, to have access to all relevant documents, etc.
However, if what is going to happen is just an “Impeachment Inquiry,” then, Speaker Pelosi and the majority House Democrats can, it appears, make the rules for such “Inquiries” anything they want, and can deny the President’s defenders any or all of the investigative tools they would be entitled to in an actual “Impeachment.”
Count on Pelosi, the Democrats, their virtually wholly owned MSM, and all their other allies to do all they can to blur the distinction between an “Inquiry” and an actual “Impeachment,” telling everyone what they are about is an “Impeachment” when such an “Inquiry” isn’t the same thing at all.
Aristotle’s concept that focusing on the telos of a thing generally results in the most efficient, effective use of that thing. As I wrote on a prior post, we are victims of our own success. Because we have a generation of young adults who have known no true threat from pestilence, famine or war, raised by a generation (my generation) of middle-aged adults who have known no true threat from pestilence, famine or war; we are no longer focused on the telos of Politics.
Prior generations understood Politics had its place in life, along with religion, family, community, charity and work. When the family next door loses a child to Polio, or a son to a foreign war, one gains an intimate understanding of the failure of Politics to solve all problems. Politics can offer a welfare check to an unwed mother struggling to raise a child, but can it offer her companionship, or a sense of self-worth?
Politics is one leg of a many legged stool humans need to interact and thrive. We can balance on a one-legged stool briefly, but the impending crash is unavoidable.
Snow on Pine,
You may find this article in the “Hollywood Reporter” interesting: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/everybody-is-freaking-freelance-writers-scramble-make-sense-new-california-law-1248195
It is a real world example of politicians caring so much about helping that they harm their constituents. It is also an example of issues that arise when the telos of Politics is mis-understood. The funny/sad/ironic thing in this case is it’s liberal, California politicians hurting liberal, free-lance writers (who almost exclusively vote for politicians to solve all their woes).
This column by Walter Williams in “Jewish World Review” is as true today as when he wrote it 15 years ago: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams022504.asp
It begins:
It’s not a long piece, and well worth a read.
Another huge factor in all of this are the percentages of unwed mothers and childless adults in the electorate. If my wife is unhappy that she cannot have something she wants her first tendency is to wonder aloud, in my presence, “How come the deadbeat I married can’t earn enough to buy a robotic vacuum, unlike the deadbeat the woman next door married?*”
If a politician wants to use deficit spending to pay off six figure college loans of people who obtained unmarketable degrees my wife and I think, “Pound sand, you thief. That debt burden will fall on our children!”
It’s interesting that the four European countries in the G-7 biggest economies — Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister Theresa May, and Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni promoting mass immigration to support social benefits — are all childless. They and their peers reap the benefits of a larger working class today without having to deal with future implications. It’s also interesting Theresa May’s replacement, Boris Johnson, has 5 children and a very different perspective than Prime Minister May.
*This hypothetical may, or may not, be based on a recent, real-world purchase.
You can’t fight a war as an individual.
Embracing a tactical collectivism of undetermined duration is needed in order to achieve the degree of coordination necessary to destroy the organized, ideological threat to individualism.
Even von Mises recognized the potential role of fascism as a temporary bulwark against labor collectivism.
Right-wingers leaving the latest Trump rally can assert natural rights for all, between blows to the head from radical lefties like antifa; but the struggle will continue until *they* assert natural rights for all.
But where do you hit them… how hard, how frequently… to make Madison’s voice pop outta their collective mouth?
I also wonder how much the importation of so many Catholics* at the turn of the prior century may play in our nation’s slide to Socialism. The U.S. was founded and run almost exclusively by Protestants for most of its history. Our first, non-Protestant President was not elected until nearly 200 years after the Revolutionary War. And, one can pretty accurately predict economic vitality or stagnation in other nations by examining the percentage of Catholics in their population. Mexico, the Philippines, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ecuador, Columbia, Peru.
Would you rather have the GDP per capita of one of those nations, or one of the leading Protestant nations; Denmark, Norway, England, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany…
We Catholics don’t have a good history of running economies and Catholic nations don’t seem to mind Socialism.
Ben Franklin wrote a bit about this, and it was also a commonly expressed fear in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Correlation isn’t causation, but we have a lot of examples of similar trends in other nations. Is it more than coincidence the Renaissance and Industrial Revolutions occurred after the rise of Protestantism in Europe?
*Full disclosure, I am a practicing Catholic whose relatives on my mother’s side {the Catholic side} came to America at the turn of the prior century.
“Is it more than coincidence the Renaissance and Industrial Revolutions occurred after the rise of Protestantism in Europe?”
I’m no expert on the subject(s) Rufus, but I believe the origins of the thing we call the renaissance preceded the Protestant developments by a goodly time. Rediscovery of works of the ancients seemed to have spurred the rebirth, which maybe then in turn contributed to the Protestant spirit, is the way I’ve heard the story told.
Too, there was a “new world” discovered in there too.
https://mobile.twitter.com/deray/status/592282869692813312?lang=en
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action#
Here is an example where cheap talk about tit for tat could have an immediate, positive impact on public discourse.
The left says woke property destruction is not violence.
You don’t pop anyone in the mouth yet. We are still at the clarifying stage.
And … I’m not arguing that conservatives should proclaim natural rights for all.
I’m arguing that they should declare that they have certain intrinsic rights about which there will be no compromise, and then leave it to the left to catch up if they can.
We have certain inherited rights whether through our political patrimony or through nature [via the telos Rufus referred to]. By making it clear that that is nonnegotiable and that there IS no social contract in absence of that recognition, the leftist generally begins to chimp out. If he resorts to violence, then you are entitled to retaliate.
If he argues, and if you know your stuff, he will either be forced to admit either overtly or tacitly that he has no respectable inherent rights himself, OR, he will be forced into babbling on about “human rights” which, when pressed, turn out to be no more than terms one short remove from the concept of natural and inalienable rights.
Now, what does this get you? Nothing but the moral high ground. Either the leftist admits that it has been using closeted natural rights predicates in staking its claims to care and solidarity, or admits that it itself relies on nothing but its own particular and non-universal feelings in forming its demands and upon its will-to-power in backing those demands.
Recently, the left has been less prone to try and smuggle natural rights in under different names in order to protect themselves against the obvious consequences of their denial and “going bare”. But this newer tactic leaves them open, at least logically, and to those who have the heart for it, to make them face the real life if presently potential consequences of what it is they are claiming.
Most of us don’t have the stomach for much of it, and there is no need to push them to the edge quite yet. But getting the future field of battle cleared never hurts.
Just allows everyone to know exactly what they are dealing with. Of course some of those famous sensitive conservatives would prefer to die themselves rather than force progressives to the breaking point where they either must admit that natural rights do exist, or leave themselves open to being regarded, on the basis of their own anthropological theory as well, and truly …. alien.
That’s their choice. Screw them.
Academia seems to present a microcosm of what happens in the general society a bit later. Now that these people are in power (at a particular college) they are now in the process to make sure there are no apostates in their midst. Truly totalitarian.
Was this the same school you told me that I needed an education on before talking about physics to you, after you failed to understand the Newtonian three body problem in his calculus and why or even how he failed to resolve that differential general equation?
Rufus T. Firefly on October 29, 2019 at 6:31 pm said:
it’s not so much the Catholics as it is the Black Pope, Jesuits, and Opus Dei.
“My history of the Jesuits is not eloquently written, but it is supported by unquestionable authorities, [and] is very particular and very horrible. Their [the Jesuit Order’s] restoration [in 1814 by Pope Pius VII] is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, despotism, [and] death. … I do not like the appearance of the Jesuits. If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of [Ignatius de] Loyola.”
John Adams (1735-1826; 2nd President of the United States)
“Between 1555 and 1931 the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Jesuit Order] was expelled from at least 83 countries, city states and cities, for engaging in political intrigue and subversion plots against the welfare of the State, according to the records of a Jesuit priest of repute [Thomas J. Campbell]. …Practically every instance of expulsion was for political intrigue, political infiltration, political subversion, and inciting to political insurrection.” (1987)
J.E.C. Shepherd (Canadian historian)
Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln
This [American Civil] war [of 1861-1865] would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons. Though there were great differences of opinion between the South and the North on the question of slavery, neither Jeff Davis [President of the Confederacy] nor anyone of the leading men of the Confederacy would have dared to attack the North, had they not relied on the promises of the Jesuits, that under the mask of Democracy, the money and arms of the Roman Catholic, even the arms of France, were at their disposal if they would attack us. I pity the priests, the bishops and monks of Rome in the United States, when the people realize that they are, in great part, responsible for the tears and the blood shed in this war. I conceal what I know on that subject from the knowledge of the nation, for if the people knew the whole truth, this war would turn into a religious war, and it would at once take a tenfold more savage and bloody character. It would become merciless as all religious wars are. It would become a war of extermination on both sides.”
— Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865; 16th President of the United States)
“The Jesuits…are a secret society – a sort of Masonic order – with superadded features of revolting odiousness, and a thousand times more dangerous.”
— Samuel Morse (1791-1872; American inventor of the telegraph; author of the book Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States)
“The Jesuits are a MILITARY organization, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power – power in its most despotic exercise – absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man [i.e., the Black Pope, the Superior General of the Jesuits]. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms [sic] – and at the same time the greatest and most enormous of abuses.”–Napoleon Bonaparte; 1769-1821
The Jesuits…are simply the Romish army for the earthly sovereignty of the world in the future, with the Pontiff of Rome for emperor…that’s their ideal. …It is simple lust of power, of filthy earthly gain, of domination – something like a universal serfdom with them [i.e., the Jesuits] as masters – that’s all they stand for. They don’t even believe in God perhaps.”
—Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881; Russian novelist)
The organization of the [Roman Catholic] Hierarchy is a complete military despotism, of which the Pope is the ostensible [i.e., apparent; seeming] head; but of which, the Black Pope [Ed. Note: The Superior General of the Jesuits], is the real head. The Black Pope is the head of the order of the Jesuits, and is called a General [i.e., the Superior General]. He not only has command of his own order, but [also] directs and controls the general policy of the [Roman Catholic] Church. He [the Black Pope] is the power behind the throne, and is the real potential head of the Hierarchy. The whole machine is under the strictest rules of military discipline. The whole thought and will of this machine, to plan, propose and execute, is found in its head. There is no independence of thought, or of action, in its subordinate parts. Implicit and unquestioning obedience to the orders of superiors in authority, is the sworn duty of the priesthood of every grade…”
— Brigadier General Thomas M. Harris He wrote the book, “Rome’s responsibility for the assassination of Abraham Lincoln” – which exposes the work of the Jesuits
“The presence of the Jesuits in any country, Romanist [i.e., Catholic] or Protestant, is likely to breed social disturbance.”–Lord Palmerston, a British statesman who served twice as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the mid-19th century.
. I’ve dealt with QM my whole career, and I would guess know a bit more about it than you.
That’s hard to demonstrate, since the only rebuttal or counter argument from you is that I need more education from that Leftist indoctrination camp you call an academy. Heh, ironic is it not.
You “guess”, because you didn’t bother to find out, professor. What are you afraid of. When you get harassed by Leftists at your place of work, these are your so called peers, so you may disengage due to your career. So what are you afraid of from ymar on physics?
The inability to reconcile QM with general relativity points to a major problem in that line of thinking that has not been reconciled.
The classical physics bias of Newton and Einstein is a bit strong in that statement. I would classify it as the problem being the other way around. Einstein’s Relativity and Newtonian physics have critical mathematical flaws that do not work based on the astronomical observations of galaxy spin or the recent dark matter/energy excuse/patch.
The inability of Newtonian and Einstein based classical physics to account for reproducible quantum mechanical and physical effects may just be due to a few quirks except…. Newton and Einstein have fundamental problems with their mathematical equations, even the most famous summarization.
The error margin between Einstein Relativity equations and astronomical cosmological observation of galactic spin rates and other phenomenon, is as high as ten to the power 120. That is 120 zeroes, physics professor. Do you understand how much of a problem is that?
And to still think that quantum physics needs to account for Relativity… it’s fundamentally the other way around. The General and Special Theories of Relativity are not just wrong, they cannot even account for astronomical observations that they should be able to using space-time calculations.
What I find fascinating is when one takes Madelung’s recasting of the Schroedinger equation in hydrodynamic form (which is compatible with Bohm pilot waves), with the recent effort of Liberati where he proposes spacetime itself is a fluid.
This has to do with Navier stokes equation, the atmosphere somehow reaching the moon now, and why Navier stokes equation does not have a predictable or eventual gradation at higher levels. In other words, there is a mathematical problem awaiting a genius to resolve it for cash prize, on the Navier stokes fluid equations. While they work, there are apparent holes or inconsistencies at higher levels of gradation.
Since I am afraid Neo will disappear my comment if I go too far into esoteric fields, and as she refuses to explain because she says this is her “House”, I won’t bother wasting my time explaining the details. Physics professor, you can look them up yourself. They aren’t hard if you know why fluids=space time is such an easier way to deal with things.
Of course the NASA result of a few microNewtons of thrust would have to be repeated and verified many times, but who knows. I have an open mind about it. Do you???
I’ll leave the open mind comment alone but that was just begging for…
I assume you are unaware of US naval patents and research on these matters, professor.
Your “life’s work” on Qm is a bit… outdated by now, I have to inform you.
Ymarsakar,
I had never read anything along the lines of what you have posted on the Jesuits, but a quick search reveals the quote by Adams, at least, is correct. Now I’m about to head down a digital rabbit hole researching the rest. I have a feeling I’ll emerge needing a shower. Masons, Black Popes…
Ymar, This thread seems to be dead, so I will go ahead and respond and apologize to Neo in advance.
A few brief points:
1) I never claimed you needed to attend any education institution in order to discuss/learn physics.
2) I am far from afraid of you or discussing physics with you LOL
3) As to the physics: your basic objection to Newton/Einstein seems to lie in, what you claim to be in the unsolved 3 body problem, AND the problem of the rotation curves of spiral galaxies. Is that correct? N3B requires a much longer mathematical response, but I’ll do it if needed later. You are right that the rotation curve data is a big problem. For myself, the “fix all” of “dark matter” is just that: an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. Same for “dark energy”. The fact that neither has been supported by any data so far is an indication that they maybe don’t exist. I have a feeling you and I are in actual agreement here partially. You take the data as a refutation of N/E physics. I actually take it as a indication of the need to modify GR. In that previous post I was suggesting that Libarti’s fluid spacetime could actually explain the rotation curves through a sort of viscosity effect without the need for dark matter. I’m not sure where QM fits in here; I don’t think anyone really does. The Bohm pilot waves, if the data from the EM drive is real, could be a game changer. But, if you have a suggestion, let’s hear it.
4) You seem much more willing to throw out all of the physics that has built bridges, allowed us to develop lasers, airplanes, computers, and land a spacecraft on Mars to within 10s of meters. I take a more conservative route, but recognize that new ideas are what advance the field.
Physics guy,
Thanks.
I was wondering, and with Neo’s permission, what you might make of Shawyer’s claim that his EM drive does not in fact require any especially esoteric physics.
Glance at the second, first.
See this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtk6xWDrwY
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUX8EWxmS3k at 9:15
Ymarsakar,
If you have an axe to grind why not get a soapbox and the audience you imagine you deserve?
There is already another life-frustrated unappreciated super-intellect posting here and displacing his hostility onto other visitors.
How about trying something constructive for a change?
DNW,
Thanks for the links. The physics seems sound, and heaven forbid, classical, based on Maxwell and Newton. 🙂 It really is a simple concept. When he started with a symmetric resonant cavity with equal forces, it immediately struck me; “well, just make it asymmetric and you have unbalanced forces, and thus thrust.” And, that’s what he did.
I have heard people exclaiming that it’s “non-propellant” and thus equating that to “no energy needed” That’s where the mistake lies. It doesn’t use a high velocity mass to provide the thrust such as with conventional jet or rockets, thus non-propellant. It DOES take energy to run, as he explains. No violation here of the 2nd Law at all. An Emdrive will still require an energy source to set up the microwaves; it needs fuel of some sort.
So, it works, the physics is basic, the problem seems to be design in that a few mNt of thrust is not very practical. What is probably needed is to take advantage of the momentum equation, p =hbar/lamda for photons. One would get much more thrust from an Emdrive using shorter wavelength photons such as visible or even UV or x-ray. Seems obvious to me as a laser is basically also a resonant cavity for photons, that building an asymmetric laser cavity would basically be an Emdrive also. The problem I can see immediately is that lasers greatly depend on the resonant condition to operate. Maybe that’s where the classified research lies? I’m not a laser guy, but that’s my guess.
Physicsguy,
I like the guy. I hope that he is right. In any event, the second video establishes, at least to my present standards that he is not a crank, and that he has a respectable curriculum vitae.
I cannot recall which resonant cavity thruster or experiment it was I was reading about, but in several it was millinewtons not micro newtons.
And as best I recall without looking it up, in one they were claiming about 730 millinewtons. Yeah, 2 and a half or 3/4 ounces.
You can detect that by hand or a spring loaded postal scale.
If that is true …