Archive for the “Politics” Category

Given that Wee Goebbels is so threatened by logic and facts that he’ll suspend even those of us with a relatively small number of followers for daring to use logic and facts while arguing against The Narrative officially approved by The Party, I figure I should capture these tweets for posterity just in case.

Putting the text below:

1) Millions of unvaccinated bodies force the virus to select for vaccine-resistant mutations, which then become dominant.

2) Millions of vaccinated bodies force the virus to select for vaccine-resistant mutations, which then become dominant.

Only one makes (bio)logical sense.

#2 is exactly what Geert Vanden Bossche warned would be the result of VACCINATE EVERYONE! — as opposed to vaccinating only those at high risk.

He was, of course, censored by the (ahem) experts at Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. Wee Goebbels didn’t approve of his message.

But sure, good little lapdogs for The Party … blame the unvaccinated for a predictable result of the VACCINATE EVERYONE! campaign — because CNN and the other Official Party Media told you that’s what to believe, so it must be true. Don’t hurt your head thinking about it.

 

UPDATE:  Man, I wish Twitter had an edit feature.  A few people interpreted Only one makes (bio)logical sense to mean I was saying only choice 1) makes biological sense.  ARGH!!  No, I was of course saying only one of these two choices makes biological sense, but I should have made that more clear by phrasing it as Which makes (bio)logical sense?  My bad.

 

Comments 4 Comments »

In case you’ve wondered how Wee Goebbels justifies labeling verifiable facts as misinformation in order to ban tweets, posts, etc., he doesn’t like, Wee Goebbels at Facebook spelled it out for us.

Actually, by “us,” I mean he explained it to John Stossel. Facebook recently censored a video on climate change produced by Stossel as misleading and partially false. Stossel demanded to know which specific portions of the video were false or misleading – and, being Stossel, he was able to keep pushing until he got an answer from Facebook’s censor:

“The problem is the omission of contextual information rather than specific ‘facts’ being ‘wrong,’” he said.

Well, there you go! Wee Goebbels doesn’t have to find anything factually incorrect in your tweet, post, video, etc., in order to ban it as misleading, misinformation, partially false, or whatever label Wee Goebbels prefers that day. Nope, all Wee Goebbels has to do is decide you’ve committed the sin of the omission of contextual information.

How’s that for a perfect example of postmodernist gobbledygook? It reminds me of the explanation by the Dumbest Person in Congress that she may be factually wrong, but she’s morally right. The Wee Goebbels version is you may be factually right, but you’re contextually wrong.

And guess what? There’s no way to win that argument – by design, of course. Anyone can decide any tweet, post, video, etc., has omitted contextual information.

When CNN and the other COVID bed-wetters hype THE RISE IN CASES BECAUSE DELTA SOMETHING AND THOSE DIRTY DEFIANT UNVACCINATED PEOPLE SOMETHING SOMETHING!!! every hour of every day, they don’t bother explaining that about only about one person per million people per day is actually dying of COVID.  They don’t explain that the one person is likely around 80 years old with multiple co-morbidities.

So as far as I’m concerned, every COVID story put out by the bed-wetter news media is missing contextual information.

That’s just my opinion – and that’s the point. Wee Goebbels can now decide any message he would prefer the public not see or hear is, in his opinion, missing contextual information … which, like magic, turns verifiable facts into misinformation.

Which in turn means Wee Goebbels is doing exactly we suspected all along: he’s just banning any message he doesn’t like.

Comments No Comments »

I knew appealing Wee Goebbels’ decision to suspend my Twitter account was pointless, but I did it anyway. Here’s the response:

So apparently Wee Goebbels had an entire support team look over my tweet, and (as a group, mind you) they decided that less than one COVID death per million per day is “misinformation,” even though I included the chart showing that the U.S. at the time of the tweet was reporting 0.82 deaths per million per day.

Boy, those must be interesting conversations in the Wee Goebbels meeting room.

“Okay, comrades, next appeal to review.  We suspended this account because the account holder claimed there is less than one COVID death per million per day.”

“Is there any way we can check the veracity of that claim, Lord Goebbels?”

“Well, he included a screen cap of publicly available data showing a 7-day average of 0.82 deaths per million per day.”

“But 0.82 is much larger than 1.0, isn’t it, Lord Goebbels?”

“It is if I say it is.”

“Well then, Lord Goebbels, we agree with you. He’s clearly spreading misinformation.”

And so it goes in Twitter Land, where facts are “misinformation” if Wee Goebbels doesn’t like what the facts say.  Welcome to Amerika.

Comments 9 Comments »

Yeah, I’m suspended from Twitter again. Wee Goebbels once again declared that I’m “spreading misinformation” about COVID. Here’s the tweet, which consists of publicly available facts and screen caps from news articles. That’s what qualifies as “misinformation” to Wee Goebbels.

Someone needs to take Wee Goebbels outside and beat some sense into him.

Comments 15 Comments »

I always enjoyed watching Cole Beasely’s acrobatic catches.  Now I’m officially a fan:

Some quotes:

“I will be outside doing what I do. I’ll be out in public. If you’re scared of me then steer clear, or get vaccinated,” the NFL player wrote on Twitter.

I’m surprised Twitter hasn’t closed his account.  The push to guilt everyone into getting vaccinated — even if you’re young or have already had COVID — clearly isn’t about protecting the public.  If you believe those wunnerful, wunnerful vaccines are effective, then you have no reason to fear being in a room with me or Cole Beasely.

“I’m not going to take meds for a leg that isn’t broken. I’d rather take my chances with Covid and build up my immunity that way. Eat better. Drink water. Exercise and do what I think is necessary to be a healthy individual. That is MY CHOICE based on MY experiences and what I think is best. I’ll play for free this year to live life how I’ve lived it from day one. If I’m forced into retirement, so be it.”

Well said, Cole.

Comments 7 Comments »

If you haven’t been watching Bret Weinstein’s interviews about COVID, the vaccines, and the alternative treatments that are being quashed, I’d urge you to do so. Here’s a video of a doctor explaining that ivermectin has been demonstrated over and over to be highly effective against COVID — both as prevention and treatment, with virtually no nasty side effects.

This is the type of stuff that will get you labeled as a right-wing conspiracy theorist and booted from Big-Tech social media. That’s a ridiculous charge to level against Weinstein, because he’s been a true-blue liberal for his entire career. (If you recognize his name, it’s likely because of the time the woke crowd at Evergreen College threw themselves a spoiled-brat riot and chased him out of his teaching job after Weinstein refused to stay home on “white people stay home day.”)

Weinstein is also a true-blue scientist. He’s been all over the COVID/vaccine issue, and unlike many on the left, he’s far more interested in actual data than in adhering to The Party’s narrative. As he’s pointed out in a few videos, if ivermectin could have ended the (ahem) “pandemic” months ago — and the evidence says it could have done exactly that — then some very powerful people had an interest in keeping the panic going instead of solving the problem.

Big Pharma? Of course. But ask yourself who else has benefited from coronhysteria. It’s a long list.


Update to above: best get watching. Weinstein’s channel is likely to be removed by YouTube soon.

And remember: the Little Goebbels working at Big-Tech social media actually think they’re the good guys. (So did the real Goebbels.)


Aaaand now the video I linked earlier today is disabled.  I wrote quite a few posts about why The Anointed are opposed to free speech on the Fat Head blog. Here’s one example. It’s a shame we’ve come to this, and it won’t end well. You can read your history to learn how people who don’t have a voice eventually respond.

Comments 10 Comments »

(Since this blog is more of a substitute for a Twitter timeline than an actual blog, I’ll often use the date as the post title and update the post throughout the day.)

——————————————————

Only a state run by liberals could regulate the marijuana business into needing a government bailout. Remember when the argument was that if we legalized pot (which I favor, by the way), governments would rake in tax revenue?  California has demonstrated — again — what Ronald Reagan once said about government’s attitude towards business: If it moves, tax it. If it still moves, regulate it. When it stops moving, subsidize it.

 


But let’s definitely tell everyone to get their (COVID-immune) teens vaccinated! Because who takes that “first do no harm” stuff seriously anyway? Big Pharma and The Party certainly don’t.

 

Comments No Comments »

Welcome to my first post in a looooong time. As I explained when I retired the Fat Head blog, I’ve gone into semi-retirement mode (meaning I no longer work the equivalent of two jobs) and have no intention of returning to writing long posts two or three times per week. I was satisfied to make comments on Twitter.

The people I refer to as Little Goebbels on Twitter had other ideas. I’ve been in Twitter jail for more than month.  Little Goebbels informed me I was suspended for “spreading misinformation about COVID-19.” The “misinformation” tweet is below, along with Little Goebbels’ generous offer to appeal or delete the tweet.

My appeal was simple: I made five statements in that tweet. If I’m “spreading misinformation,” tell me which of the five points is false.

Despite assuring me “We’ll take a look and will respond as soon as possible,” more than a month went by. Apparently it takes a long time for Little Goebbels to re-read a tweet and say, Hey, wait a minute! All five statements are clearly true, so this can’t be misinformation!

But of course, all the Little Goebbels working at Big-Tech social media aren’t actually trying to stamp out misinformation. They’re simply acting as obedient lapdogs and silencing anyone who disagrees with The Party. They define “misinformation” as any message The Party doesn’t want people to hear.

Over the past year, they’ve de-platformed people for saying the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, hydroxychloroquine can reduce COVID symptoms, and vitamin D can prevent COVID infection – all of which turned out to be true, yet all were labeled “misinformation” just a few months ago.

The Babylon Bee put it perfectly:

The only acceptable message is that the vaccines are completely wunnerful, wunnerful, they can’t possibly harm anyone, and everyone should get them. That’s what The Party wants, and Little Goebbels is nothing if not loyal to The Party.

The irony is that just a few years ago, I gave a speech explaining how social media was enabling the Wisdom of Crowds effect by bypassing the information gatekeepers and allowing us to share information with each directly. Turns out The Party and Little Goebbels aren’t big fans of The Marketplace of Ideas.

I’ve been hearing for years how awful it is that people who disagree politically are separating into their own worlds and not having discussions. Duh. “Progressives” clearly have no interest in discussions. To them, a “discussion” consists of “shut up and agree with us, or we’ll ban you.”

Since I’ll likely be banned again from Twitter for speaking truths The Ministry of Truth wants stifled, I’m resurrecting this blog as a place where I can speak my mind. They’ll be short posts, which I’ll likely update frequently … like my own little Twitter timeline.

I’ve also joined Gab (@TomDNaughton), but don’t spend much time there yet.  As far as I can tell, Gab is 100% libertarians and conservatives. That’s the predictable result of Little Goebbels running Big-Tech social media: those who are censored for disagreeing with The Party go elsewhere, and we separate into our own echo chambers. History says this won’t end well.

So, Twitter, here’s my appeal: never in history have the people who silence opposing ideas turned out to be the good guys – and you’re not going to be the first. You’re the bad guys. You’re just too @#$%ing stupid and too caught up in the True Believer mentality to realize it.

Comments 25 Comments »

Hmmm … interesting reactions to Arizona’s new immigration law, or anti-illegal-alien law, whichever term you prefer.  Not surprisingly, politicians from my old state of California are up in arms about it.  That’s because they prefer a different term for illegal aliens:  future loyal voters — if only they can push another amnesty bill through Congress someday. Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, has called for a moratorium on city-related travel to Arizona, and several members of the Los Angeles city council have proposed that L.A. stop doing any business with Arizona.

Mexican government officials are also up in arms, labeling the immigration law “abominable,” “a violation of human rights” and “discriminatory.” (Hard to argue with that last one; we do tend to treat criminals differently in America.)

Given all the hubub, I think the only fair course of action is to scrap the Arizona law and replace it with a new national immigration policy.  Here are the provisions it ought to contain:

  • Foreigners will be admitted into the country according to their ability to contribute to our national progress.
  • Foreigners will be banned from interfering in our country’s politics.
  • Immigration officials must ensure that all immigrants have the necessary funds for their own sustenance and for the sustenance of their dependents.
  • Foreigners may be barred from the country if  1) their presence upsets the equilibrium of the national demographics, 2) they are deemed detrimental to our economic or national interests, 3) they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, 4) they have broken any of our laws, or 5) they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.
  • Immigration authorities must keep track of every single person in the country and assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants.
  • A National Population Registry must be established to keep track of every single individual who comprises the population of the country and verify each individual’s identity.
  • A national Catalog of Foreigners must be established to keep track of all foreign tourists and immigrants, and assign each individual with a unique tracking number.
  • Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into the country will be fined.
  • All foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may fined or imprisoned.
  • All foreigners who fail to obey the rules of the country will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned.
  • All foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned.
  • All foreigners who are deported and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization will be imprisoned for up to 10 years.
  • Foreigners who violate the terms of their visas will be imprisoned  for to up to six years.
  • Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visas — such as working with out a permit – will face prosecution and possible imprisonment.
  • Citizens who help illegal aliens enter the country will themselves considered criminals and face prosecution.
  • Any citizen who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in this country will be subject to up to five years in prison.

Yes, yes, I know … it’s not exactly send me your huddled masses yearning to breathe free kind of stuff.  Some of those policies come off as racist, classist, or downright harsh.  So how can I possibly call them fair?

Simple:  those are Mexico’s immigration policies.  If Mexican officials think our laws are abominable and discriminatory, let’s adopt theirs instead.

Comments 12 Comments »

My goodness.  For months now, I’ve written about a variety of hot-button issues — global warming, health-care reform, media bias, taxes — and gotten a handful of replies.  Last week I compared the vegan nutjobs who attacked Lierre Keith to the True Believers described by Eric Hoffer, then closed with one paragraph saying most True Believers in modern times have ended up on the radical left and BANG! — a roiling debate ensues.  I suppose if I’d really wanted to generate some heat, I could’ve just written one line:  Resolved, liberals are loonier than conservatives. 

Well, I happen to like roiling debates, so I’m going to stick my hand in the hornet’s nest again and explain why I believe more True Believers have ended up on the radical left.  It comes down to a matter of intellectual heritage, which I’ll get to in a moment.

But first, let me explain what I don’t mean by a True Believer:  I’m not talking about anyone with strong beliefs.  Yes, some people are close-minded because they’re swept up in a True Believer movement.  As Hoffer put it:

It is the true believer’s ability to shut his eyes and stop his ears to facts which in his own mind deserve never to be seen nor heard which is the source of his unequalled fortitude and constancy. 

But many people have strong beliefs because they’re well-informed and committed to principles.  I was a liberal as a young man, probably because my parents were.  They still are.  It wasn’t a proud moment for me to fly home and see an Obama sign in their front yard.  Now I’m a libertarian with strong beliefs, which I formed after reading quite a few books on history and economics.  I became a libertarian by opening my mind, not by closing it.  My parents, meanwhile, are still mystified as to how they ended up with three “right wing” libertarian offspring.

But even as a committed libertarian, I’d rather discuss politics with a well-read and committed socialist (and I had an actor friend in California who fit that description) than with a wishy-washy moderate.  I can’t for the life of me understand people who voted for Ronald Reagan, then Bill Clinton, then George W. Bush, then Barack Obama.  The media calls them swing voters or moderates.  I call them people with no flippin’ idea what they actually believe.

Some have mentioned religious fanatics as examples of right-wing True Believers.  If they want to impose their religion on others — if they want to kill the nonbelievers, or convert them all, or pass laws requiring prayer in public schools — then yes, I agree.  But I also have friends who are deeply religious and know I’m not.  Guess what?  They’re still my friends, and they’ve never tried to convert me.  Their faith is personal, and they have no interest in using the power of government to impose it on anyone else, or even in convincing their friends to join the cause.  They believe … but they hardly fit Hoffer’s description of True Believers.

I’m also not talking about people who annoy you because they oppose your politics.  If loud Tea Party protesters bother you because you support health-care “reform” and you really, really wish they’d just shut up and go away, fine.  But that doesn’t make them True Believers of the stripe Hoffer described.  They are not trying to impose their vision on anyone; they are protesting against having a trillion-dollar health-care “reform” package imposed on them.  They’re resisting collectivism, not advocating for it.

If you’re more comfortable with a definition of True Believers that includes more right-wingers, be my guest.  But I’m talking about Hoffer’s definition, not yours.  With that in mind, let’s summarize Eric Hoffer’s description, some of which I mentioned last week.

  • They often have low self-esteem and are typically frustrated with their own lives or the world in general.
  • Fanaticism appeals to them because it provides a sense of idealism, identity and certainty.
  • They value the collective more than the individual and believe individuals should be willing to sacrifice themselves for the collective good.
  • They believe that by imposing their beliefs, they can bring about a better future.
  • They can ignore or rationalize away all contrary evidence, as well as logical inconsistencies in their own beliefs.
  • They consider anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs an enemy and want to silence those who disagree.

To that summary, I’ll also add more quotes from Hoffer himself:

Nonconformists travel as a rule in bunches. You rarely find a nonconformist who goes it alone. And woe to him inside a nonconformist clique who does not conform with nonconformity.  (But enough about my decade in Hollywood.)

Their innermost desire is for an end to the “free for all.” They want to eliminate free competition and the ruthless testing to which the individual is continually subjected in a free society.

Unless a man has talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden.

The explosive component in the contemporary scene is not the clamor of the masses but the self-righteous claims of a multitude of graduates from schools and universities. This army of scribes is clamoring for a society in which planning, regulation, and supervision are paramount and the prerogative of the educated

We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their private ails.

The real “haves” are they who can acquire freedom, self-confidence, and even riches without depriving others of them. They acquire all of these by developing and applying their potentialities. On the other hand, the real “have nots” are they who cannot have aught except by depriving others of it. They can feel free only by diminishing the freedom of others, self-confident by spreading fear and dependence among others, and rich by making others poor.

Doesn’t exactly sound like a left-wing philosopher to me.  But what raised such a ruckus was my opinion that most (not all) True Believers in modern times have ended up on the radical left.  (Please note that modifier “radical.”)  Here’s why I believe that’s true:

I’ll start with most destructive True Believer movements of modern times:  Nazism, Fascism and Communism, which together killed more than 130 million people in the 20th century.  One or two commenters raised Nazism and Fascism as examples of right-wing movements.  Historical revisionists have a done a bang-up job of associating Hitler and Mussolini with some kind of right-wing ideology, but it simply isn’t true.  They both had legions of fans in the U.S. before World War II — nearly all of them members of the “progressive” movement.  FDR and Mussolini exchanged letters of mutual admiration for their economic policies.  Before becoming Il Duce, Mussolini was a socialist agitator and a journalist for a socialist magazine. 

As for Nazism … right wing?  You’ve got to be kidding me.  Hitler’s aha! moment came when he attended a meeting of the German Workers’ Party and listened to a lecture titled How and by What Means Is Capitalism to Be Eliminated?  He grew to despise bourgeois capitalism and declared that “Basically, Nazism and Marxism are the same.”  He only disliked the actual Marxists because too many of them had Jewish names, and because Nazis and communists were competing for supporters among the same groups.

Even culturally, the Nazis were hardly what anyone would consider right-wing today.  Many Nazis were artsy-fartsy types who considered themselves mystics.  Hitler hated Christianity and railed against religion’s restrictions on sex.  He saw nothing wrong with out-of-wedlock birth and encouraged it.  He was a vegetarian, a nature enthusiast, and spoke at length about the wonders of organic foods.  Heinrich Himmler even supported animal rights — kind of like the nut-jobs at PETA.  Take away the racism and the anti-Semitism, and a young Nazi could get together with a Sixties radical and have a real meeting of the minds.

The Nazi party platform proclaimed in 1920 contained, as you’d expect, a lot of demands to rid Germany of non-Germans, Jews, and other undesirables.  But it also contained several other gems, such as:

  • We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and a way of life for the citizens.
  • We demand abolition of unearned income (rents).
  • We demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
  • We demand the nationalization of all previous associated industries (trusts).
  • We demand a division of profits of heavy industries.
  • We demand an expansion on a large scale of old-age welfare.
  • The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education.
  • The state is to care for the elevating of national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

Crazy right-wing stuff, huh?  Those idiots carrying the Bush = Hitler signs a few years back sure knew their history.

I suppose you could call the Nazis and Fascists “right wing” because they were militaristic and nationalistic, but by that definition, the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega would all be right-wingers.  Funny how they didn’t have any fans among the American right wing … but they had plenty in Hollywood.

Now, let’s return to Hoffer’s description.  We’ll start with dissatisfied with themselves or the world in general.  I noticed years ago that my libertarian and conservative friends seem happier in general than my liberal friends.  (Yes, I have friends of both varieties.)  Before you protest with tales of all the happy liberals and miserable conservatives you know personally, keep in mind that polls have shown the same thing many times:  self-identified conservatives are happier on average than self-identified liberals.  When I look at what my liberal and conservative friends believe, it isn’t hard to figure out why:

Economic Opportunity
Liberals:  Big corporations are screwing us, markets don’t work, the good jobs are all being outsourced to India, the little guy doesn’t stand a chance anymore, and the rich (be sure to sneer when you use that term) are the “winners of life’s lottery.”
Conservatives:  Work hard, study hard, take risks, be disciplined, and you can become a success because this is a land of opportunity.

Global Warming
Liberals:  We’re approaching runaway global warming.  The ice caps are going to melt and New York will end up underwater.  Millions will be displaced.  Deserts around the world, hurricanes and tornadoes and floods, oh my.
Conservatives:  The earth warms and cools in cycles and always has.  Stop worrying about it.

Health Care
Liberals:  We have one of the worst systems in the world.  Castro provides better health care than we do.   Insurance and drug companies are screwing us.
Conservatives:  We have the most advanced system in the world, and most people can afford a policy.  Get the government out of the health care business, repeal laws barring competition in insurance across state lines, and the cost will come down too.

Now, I’m not asking which world-view is correct.  But pretty please, try to be objective about this question:  which world view is more likely to produce or attract satisfied people?  Which world view is more likely to attract or produce dissatisfied people?  And which world-view is more likely to attract “we must save the world even if it means taking away some freedoms” types?

As for valuing the collective more than the individual … do I even have to debate that one?  Do conservatives write books with titles like It Takes A Village?  Other than the occasional anti-war sentiment, the American left’s primary pitch to the voters for the past 70 years can be summed up in two sentences:  “Vote for us!  We’ll give you a bunch of goodies and make someone else pay the bill!”

Earlier, I said the far left is more prone to a True Believer mindset than the far right because of the differences in intellectual heritage.  In his book Explaining Postmodernism, philosophy professor Stephen Hicks recounts that heritage. 

What was once called “liberalism” but is now called libertarianism or small-government conservatism (not the same as religious conservatism) traces its roots to the Enlightenment thinkers, most of whom were British:  Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes (not British), John Locke and Adam Smith.  Their works emphasized rationalism, objectivism, the scientific method, and individual freedom — most importantly, freedom from government coercion.  (Thomas Jefferson was deeply influenced by Locke.)  As Hicks explains:

Individualism and science are thus consequences of an epistemology of reason.  Individualism applied to politics yields liberal democracy … individualism applied to economics yields free markets and capitalism.

Post-modernism, which inspired much of the modern left’s thinking, began as reaction against the Enlightenment thinkers — ironically, in part to save religious faith from the onslaught on science and rationality.  Immanuel Kant was a major influence, as were a lot of other Germans (surprise):  Friedrich Nietzsche, Georg W.F. Hegel, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (not German), Martin Heidegger, and of course Karl Marx.  They specifically rejected reason and logic in favor of subjectivism.

Simply put, an objectivist thinks this way:  If it’s true, I believe it.  A subjectivist, however, thinks like this:  If I believe it, it’s true.  According to Heidegger, for example, reason tells us nothing important, and logical inconsistencies are not a sign of intellectual failure.

Now, once again, try to be objective (there’s that word again) while answering this question:  who is more resistant to pesky things like logic and reason, an objectivist or a subjectivist?  Who has an easier time ignoring logical inconsistencies in a belief system? 

As Hicks points out, only a subjectivist could believe that:

  • All cultures are valid and equally deserving of respect, but Western culture is really bad.
  • Values are subjective, but racism and sexism are really, really bad.
  • Technology is destructive and bad, but it’s not fair that some people can afford more of it than others.

The post-modernists were also collectivists.  Here are few relevant quotes:

The state ought to have a universal compulsory force to move and arrange each part in the manner best suited to the whole.  – Rousseau

All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the state … this final end has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be member of the state. – Hegel

A single person, I need hardly say, is something subordinate, and as such he must dedicate himself to the ethical whole. – Hegel

Hegel, by the way, was a big influence on Karl Marx.  I’m pretty sure we can agree Marx was a collectivist extraordinaire, and it’s not even debatable that Marx has far more fans on the political left than on the right.  One of my left-wing college professors even had a poster of Marx on the wall of his office. 

Someone commenting on last week’s post pointed out that “left” and “right” aren’t always accurate labels and suggested I refer to them as collectivist-authoritarian and individualist-libertarian.  Fine, I’m cool with that.  “Left” and “right” don’t always fit.  I once saw William F. Buckley argue against anti-drug laws, which isn’t exactly a right-wing position. 

But at the same time, I don’t know how anyone can deny that leftists tilt towards a collectivist-authoritarian belief system.  In the past year or so, I’ve been treated to these statements while debating liberal friends:

  • You only have the rights the government grants you.
  • How can you call high taxes legalized theft?!  It’s not just your money!  We let you make the money!  (I’m assuming he meant no one tried to arrest me for selling my software to people who wanted to buy it.)

By contrast, take a look at this quote from a rather famous individualist-libertarian named Thomas Jefferson:

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

In the modern era, does that sound like something you’d hear coming from the left or the right?  Is it what the fanatical Obama supporters believe?  Is there any evidence whatsoever Obama believes it himself?

Post-modern leftists also have a different intellectual heritage when it comes to language itself.  Since reason doesn’t tell us anything real, the post-modernists taught that language isn’t a tool for seeking the truth; it’s a weapon to wielded for the purpose of acquiring power.  Don’t like what some objectivist-individualist wrote, but having a hard time disputing it?  No problem.  Declare logic a “white male construct” and apply the principles of Deconstruction … otherwise known as “If you can’t debate your opponent’s ideas, label him a sexist or a racist.”  I see that one in action every time a conservative justice is nominated to the Supreme Court.

If you don’t think Deconstruction as a form of analysis was intended to be political, here’s a quote from Jacques Derrida, the father of Deconstruction:

Deconstruction never had any interest or meaning, at least in my eyes, other than as a radicalization, that is to say, within a tradition of a certain Marxism.

Saul Alinksy, whose Rules for Radicals was the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis, exhorted his readers to pick a target, attack relentlessly, and make it personal … and it’s okay because the ends justify the means:

Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.

Gee, that sounds kind of like it would be okay to label your opponents as racists and sexists if it helps you win a political fight.  I can see why some on the left found Alinsky so inspirational.  As professor Hicks writes early on in his book:

A related puzzle is explaining why postmodernists — particularly among those postmodernists most involved with the practical applications of postmodernist ideas, or putting postmodernist ideas into actual practice in their classrooms and in faculty meetings — are the most likely to be hostile to dissent and debate, the most likely to engage in ad hominem argument and name-calling, the most likely to enact politically-correct authoritarian measures, and the most likely to use anger and rage as argumentative tactics. 

Whether it is Stanley Fish calling all opponents of affirmative action bigots and lumping them in with the Ku Klux Klan, or whether it is Andrea Dworkin’s male-bashing in the form of calling all heterosexual males rapists, the rhetoric is very often harsh and bitter.  So the puzzling question is: Why is it that among the far Left — which has traditionally promoted itself as the only true champion of civility, tolerance, and fair play — that we find those habits least practiced and even denounced?

As for who has a greater desire to actually stifle ideas (as opposed to merely labeling them as racist or sexist to avoid debating them), I’m sure that debate could go on forever.  Some of you cited news stories about conservative groups shouting down or even spitting on liberal politicians.  Okay, it happens, and it’s disgusting when it does. 

But I don’t see many left-wing speakers being shouted down on campuses or having pies thrown at them.  I haven’t heard of any cases of liberal college newspapers being shut down or having their entire press runs stolen by hostile students.  I haven’t heard of any liberal college students being brought up on “hate speech” charges for expressing their opinions.  I also don’t read many news stories about violent right-wing protesters, but you can pretty much count on violent left-wing protesters showing up any time there’s an economic summit. 

Maybe that’s my own selection bias.  But as far as who is more likely to be dissatisfied with the world and demand we change it, more likely to reject logic and reason, more likely to believe the collective is more important than individual rights, more likely to fear free competition, more likely to support regulation by an educated elite, more likely to believe they can gain only by taking from others, more likely to want public cures for private ails, and more likely to support using government coercion to impose its preferred way of life on others — in other words, to act like Hoffer’s True Believers — sorry, the radical left wins hands down.

But enough about health-care “reform.”

Comments 30 Comments »