Fear

 

It never fails, but I post something about the threats facing the nation and some asinine and sanctimonious know-nothing comes by and drops a line about “I’m sorry you’re so afraid. I hope you find peace.” The dumber of them talk about my being afraid of change, foreigners, immigrants or non-white people.

Uh. If I were afraid of change, I wouldn’t have moved across the ocean and then twice across this country. And I wouldn’t write future-embracing stories.

As for being afraid of foreigners, immigrants and non-white people – for these idiots definition of non white – I’d run screaming everytime I look in the mirror.

The problem is they’re locked in a narrative in their heads. I’ve mentioned this before. First of all they think history comes with directional arrows.

I’ve said before and will maintain that the whole thing about “Standing athwart history yelling stop” is a very bad thing, because it presumes the future is leftist.

Look, if the future is leftist, it is, like the “queer future’ very short. Leftist societies are not long on the endurance, survivability or long term prospects. They just inflict a lot of misery and eventually the society will default to its foundations. Thus Russia is returning to the brutal and retrograde nation it always was, Cuba is a plantation run by brutal overseers, and China is going for a blinkered dynasty like many in its past.

The future doesn’t automatically belong to the left.

But the left has to believe this, because nothing else belongs to them. Even the most cursory reading of history shows that it definitely hasn’t gone their way.

So, like the failing business that is always about to breakthrough tomorrow, the left has to believe it has the future.

And so it has to cast every opposition to its crazy theocratic rule as “fear.”

Oh, yeah, damn skippy I’m afraid of their rule. But that’s because I’m afraid of seeing the economy run by people who couldn’t run a lemonade stand (when I said before that everyone is afraid these days, mostly I mean afraid in the “where is the money going to come from” sense), I’m afraid of their attempts to legislate prosperity for all (because it has worked so well everywhere they tried it), and equality for all (best attempt at that one was Madame Guillotine. Once you separate head from body the remains are all remarkably alike.) I’m terrified of their attempts to control speech and expression and their demand we all think as they want to (the ministry of thoughts.) I despise their blinkered pseudo-internationalist views (in the future we’re all one country, and that country is the USSR) and I loathe their attempts to make races (and ethnicities. And language groups. And orientations)into separate interest groups while screaming everyone else is racist.

I am afraid of all of this because in the past, countries that have succumbed to the proclamations of their twisted secular religion have all gone through horrible turmoil and misery and ended up poorer than ever before.

They on the other hand are convinced that I’m afraid of their rule because I hate minorities, gays, prosperity, equality and all goodness, possibly including chocolate and macadamia.

This requires increasingly more bizarre leaps of logic and reasoning and doing things like declaring people like Larry and I (hello, first and second generation immigrants) non-Latino, so that they can accuse us of being afraid of Latinos, even though all our culture and genetics are Latino and my whole family is still in Portugal (except my sons.) It demands they call people like me, who want a minimal government “fascist.”

It’s difficult to hold on to their position, of course, so they shout louder and louder, while ignoring the cracks forming in their world view.

In the end, they shout because they’re afraid. When you’re entire worldview is a one-piece, unwieldy, self-contradictory set of precepts that have no relation to the real world, you live in fear. If that thin shell cracks there’s nothing remaining of the world view you espoused, and upon which you built your unearned assumptions of intelligence and caring. You’ll have to think yourself into a new self image. A terrifying prospect for adults who’ve never had an original thought in their lives.

Fear. They have it. And through the fear that surrounds them like a miasma they see everyone else as afraid.

I’m afraid for my country and my children, for the economy and the world. But not too much. Or rather, I’m afraid in the short term, but not the long one.  I’m afraid of the mess they’re going to put us through, but I’m not afraid they’ll win.  And I’m certainly not afraid the future will include different ethnicity, skin colors or orientations, because right now in my family and my friends I have all of those.  (Baby, we’re a rainbow.  A libertarian rainbow.)

I’m afraid they’ll cost innocent lives, but not that they’ll overwhelm us. Because, you know, in the end we are in line with how the world works, and they’re not.

I’m afraid of many things, but none of those is that they’re the future.

In the end, we win, they lose.

213 thoughts on “Fear

      1. yeah yeah Red, and we all know what the road to massive death and suffering is paved with…..aside from the oceans of blood, of the men, women, and kids these assholes supposedly want to “help”

    1. Dangit, you typoed your response to the typo, so I missed it when I searched the page to see if anyone else said something about it first. 😛

        1. Is there any other kind around here?

          Other than wicked-cubed, wicked to the fourth, … wicked to the nth+1, that is.

          Was at grocery this AM and glancing through Readers’ Digest in the checkout line — they had a section of “jokes that make you appear smart.”

          The mathematician said to her son, “Honestly, if I’ve told you n I’ve told you n+1 times …”

          Why did Beethoven get rid of his chickens? They kept going Bach, Bach-Bach.

          What was Beethoven’s favorite fruit? Ba-nana-na-na.
          (I hope I remembered the spelling properly.)

    2. It’s a contraction: “Moonbat nutball” and “Academia,” I think.

      But now that I think upon it, I’m not sure the contraction form conveys any more information than just “Academia.” Or to paraphrase Mark Twain, “He was an Academic. He was an Insane Delusional Paranoid Confiscational Nutball Moonbat. But I repeat myself.”

  1. Does Man need chaos to provide him purpose in attempting to impose order on it?

    If yes, what happens if he succeeds as the necessity for his existence is no longer there?

    I don’t think the problem is a leftist/socialist/progressive future. My fear is a future in which people forget why they are here and if this comes about it won’t be due more to tech than political advances.

    Of course, reality i.e. human nature and natural laws always trump tech in the end so I guess my fear is of a soft, fat race unable to deal with chaos when it finally returns.

    Just an early morning ramble to let me hit the notify me of follow-up comments box.

    1. If Man (or the subset of it that finds purpose in imposing order) should run out of other chaos to be challenged by – he can always try gardening!

  2. Leftist societies are not long on the endurance, survivability or long term prospects.

    But that’s only because it hasn’t been done right!!!! [/leftist]

    Here’s the thing: I’m not afraid of leftists. However, the long-term damage that they can inflict on this country is immense. And their desire to cast everyone opposed to their increasingly insane agenda as EVIL FROM THE 8TH DIMENSION is going to end badly. For them. If you continue to portray your opponents as motivated solely by bad intentions, the time will come when that prophecy will become self-fulfilling. People will say “screw it” and act the way that they’re being portrayed.

    I’ve long thought that this country would go through another civil war, although I did think that it would be bloodless. The bloodless part seems less likely every day. Frankly, I don’t think that the left understands what they’re doing. When you scream “Surrender and obey!!!” to people disinclined to do so, and said people are far more heavily armed than you are, the end result is not likely to be one that you favor.

    1. …their desire to cast everyone opposed to their increasingly insane agenda as EVIL FROM THE 8TH DIMENSION…

      So they think we’re all one of these guys?

      1. [Emilio Lizardo Italian Accent] Laugh-a while you can-a, a-Monkey Boy. [/Emilio Lizardo Italian Accent]

  3. “I’m sorry you’re so afraid. I hope you find peace.”

    Peace. They keep using that word, but their use of it annoys me.

    Peace is a fleeting thing. It has been since Cain and Abel or, if you prefer, Ogg hit Ugg with a rock. What they mean by “peace” is that you accept their leftist worldview. They are no more peaceful than anyone else. After all, look how they scream about Larry and Sarah not really being “ethnic” because Portuguese isn’t really Latino or whatever. A peaceful person wouldn’t get so in a tizzy about it.

    They want you and me to find their definition of peace (within an individual), which means tolerant of the leftist policies they support, but they will never accept true peace.

    1. That’s because to find true peace, they have to do something very terrifying. They have to both take responsibility for their own actions, and then they have to accept that they can’t control everything. Usually that combination doesn’t work so well for those who are not particularly religious (which a lot of the left seems to be).

          1. Sounds like the best sort of party. Should we drink before, during, or after the fight? Or would that change it from “party” to “drunken brawl”?

            1. It would have to be during, because it really means, “Perpetual”. The combatants change out like dance partners.

              1. Oh, and if you’re going to actually join the fight, I recommend not having had too much drink, as it dulls your attack and defense.

                  1. Drinking may make you hit the wrong person. Imagine of a tiny lizard hitting Godzilla (while Godzilla might not notice being hit, the lizard is in trouble if he does). [Very Big Evil Grin]

                    1. Bambi vs Gozilla?

                      I saw that once, sort of. A toy poodle came running up and nipped at my cattle dog (tough enough he’d routinely shake off being kicked across the barnyard by a cow or horse) just after I’d let him off the leash in the park.

                      My dog turned and just *looked* at him. A look of dreadful realization crossed the poodle’s face as he took in the difference in relative sizes (10:1, at a minimum) and the absence of a leash. I could swear I heard “Oh . . . SH*T!” linger in the air as he did a 180 turn and ran.

                      Other than chasing him all the way home, no mayhem ensued. But judging by the expression of terror, the terrible toy may have succumbed to a heart attack after he got there.

                  2. “Drinking gives Herculean strength!” no no. that strength comes from being the bastard son of zeus. Oh and hugely long flowing locks of hair…

            2. The correct answer to any party planning question starting with “Should we drink before, during, or after…” is, of course “Yes.”

              1. Nonsense – drinking during a fight while maintaining liquid containment is enabled by the phrase “Here, hold my drink.”

                1. Pish-Tosh — if somebody is holding your drink while you fight, you are not drinking while fighting.

                  Admittedly, the real proof of a true warrior is the ability to engage in a fight without spilling a drop of your drink.

                  There is probably video of Jackie Chan demonstrating the proper technique … but this —

                  — is not it.

          2. Yeah, somebody might want to check in the pantry… figured the little fella would be outta the jar by now…

      1. OTOW, it’s jealousy of the peace they occasionally observe in others that motivates their misuse of the word.

        1. Often, though it’s been my observation that the Atheists tend to be more worked up about the fact they can’t control such things, then again most of the Atheists I know are high strung so I’m not sure which way the cause/effect quotient goes. I doubt we could get a study funded to determine the causes of inner peace. 😉

          1. it’s possible that there’s a bit of self-selection going on there. The realistic atheists don’t often announce it, since it’s more of a private thing. For instance, I seldom mention being agnostic, except as a preface to being disgusted at having to school some sanctimonious pretend Christian (not the real thing, they know better) on the meaning of some of the Bible quotations they throw out, yet I fully understand that I cannot control everything (nor would I want to), and at least try to take responsibility for my actions.

            1. Hence why more study is needed. Alas, it is unlikely to ever be done. I tend not to classify agnostics with atheists, mostly (again self-selection but research must begin somewhere) because of the range of agnostics I’ve met, so there’s that variance in classification (and coincidentally, makes a point about the difficulty of actually trying to classify human beings in any kind of meaningful way.)

              1. Agnosticism is an intellectual position: “I don’t know”.
                Atheism is an emotional position: “I believe”.
                So it’s possible to be both at the same time.

                I’m an Apatheist. I don’t know, I don’t care:-P.

          2. There are two kinds. Most of the ones I associate with are libertarian atheists. While they often piss me off with some of the anti-faith comments they make, they believe in cause and effect and personal responsibility among many other things.

            But I have a low tolerance of people who spend time deriding everything I hold dear, and leftist atheists would likely be more than I could handle.

              1. But but… Atheism isn’t a Religion so they can’t be “religious” fanatics. [Sarcasm]

                1. Just because they’re an Atheist doesn’t mean they’re religious in a different way.

                  Socialism, veganism, etc.

                  1. For some of them the rejection of any form of divine is so passionate that it is their religion. I have known more than one rabidly evangelical atheist.

                1. Ask them if they believe in extraterrestrials. If they say they do, ask them if they think it is kind of silly to believe in invisible men in the sky.

                  I have a lot of respect for honest skeptics but someone mocking me for my faith is someone who has made up his mind and what he has made up his mind about is not the existence of God but about not wanting to think about it.

    2. Paraphrasing a recent conversation:

      “Everyone who doesn’t agree with me is ignorant!”
      “Hey now, folks can come to different conclusions even with all the information. The person you’re talking about didn’t say so straight out, but the way they’re writing makes it pretty clear they know something and just won’t lay it out.”
      “No! Those who disagree with me are CLEARLY ignorant, stop causing conflict!”

      1. Oh, yes. I was on a recent discussion of civility where leftists were whining that they had the right to call conservatives stupid because the conservatives just parrot right-wing talking points while they offered reasoned arguments and facts.

      2. Be fair now — many of those with whom we disagree do NOT deem us ignorant. Many of them consider us evil, greedy, selfish and/or heartless.

        1. Or “seeking through academic argument that which you should be seeking in your heart.” Fits with the “heartless” part you mention, RES, but I’m pretty sure I wasn’t actually evil in her mind, just not in touch with my feelings. After all, if I were, I’d HAVE to agree with her position.

      3. You get those too? I’m not surprised, really. Seems pretty typical.

        I accept that people have experiences that lead them to different conclusions, but often the other side just can’t.

        For example, a friend got pissed about a blog post I wrote about the minimum wage. Now, this post got me an email about possibly appearing on The Daily Show (Peter Schiff did the spot, apparently), but she didn’t like it. Why? Because she makes minimum wage and, unsurprisingly, supports it being raised because she and her “roommate” (who we suspect is actually a girlfriend, but whatever) is also making minimum wage and between the two incomes they can’t get ahead. Now, the fact the girlfriend – who is also a friend – got a BA in English but doesn’t want to teach plays no part in that at all, I’m sure. Anyways, the conversation started to get heated, mostly because she figured that I didn’t understand what it was like making minimum wage. If I did, how could I oppose raising it?

        Well, first, I pointed out the post was bashing morons who think burger flipping is worth $15 per hour. Second, I made minimum wage in my day. I then worked hard and got better paying jobs.

        1. Heck, I started out making LESS than minimum wage. Even if you don’t count the ranch, I worked in fast food and the guy got away with claiming we got tips.

            1. Got in an argument on Everitt Mickey’s Facebook wall a while back with someone claiming to be Conservative, who was saying that we’re horrible for not wanting to raise the minimum wage*. He claimed that in this country, it used to be that an average working-class family could have a big house and a new car. I told him that MY family, who were better off than average, didn’t have a big house, and only ONCE bought a new car – one of the previous year’s models, after the new year’s models came out, so it was marked way down.

              * Unlike a lot of conservatives and libertarians, I DO think there should be a minimum wage, for the simple reason that there is a point at which it’s worthless, in this country, to work for less, unless you’re wanting to volunteer time in order to get experience. My opinion, YMMV.

              1. What gets missed is that the definition of “working class”. They’ve somehow managed to think that everyone who is working class makes minimum wage. I hate to break it to them, but skilled trades, manufacturing, and a pile of other vocations average higher than minimum wage by a good bit.

                But hey, burger flippers should all drive BMW’s and live in McMansions. Makes perfect sense to me.

                1. They also don’t tend to define “big house” nor look at the cost of a new car.

                  In that once upon a time they reference, a “big” house might have been 1500 sq ft (I am sure it is possible to look up average house sizes and costs but I don’t care to bother as it is not really relevant to my point) with one story, one bath, no air conditioning (possibly no central heat), no carpeting, no insulation, no wiring except the very most basic (our first house was built just after WWII, IIRC, and the original fuse box required only two fuses.) We won’t even talk appliances — maybe the kitchen had two, maybe the stove/oven required wood and might be the refrigerator, instead of making ice required it (according to a biography I read as a youth, early football great Red Grange worked as a young man delivering ice, so at least up until the Great War which ended all war, ice boxes worked the old-fashioned way, converting H2O from solid to liquid in an enclosed space.)

                  As for new cars — a car was once a much simpler and less expensive item. Again, you could look up the figures on what an average family’s annual salary was and how much a family sedan cost, but take my word for it, you got a lot less car (and spent more operating it) for your money. No computers in the engine, no AC nor stereo in the dash, no automatic transmission, no power nothing — brakes, steering not windows. Nor did a new car last you anything like today’s expectations.

                  The argument is based on an apples to oranges flaw in our collective memories. There are other errors built in, as well. Back then financing stuff like cars and houses was not near so easy as today, requiring much larger down payments. For proper comparison you probably need to look at average incomes along the way; it isn’t so long that $5K per annum was decent money

                  He doesn’t make much money
                  Only five thousand per
                  Some judge who thinks he’s funny
                  Says you’ll pay six to her

                  He says now judge suppose I fail
                  The judge says budge right into jail
                  You better keep her I think it’s cheaper
                  Then makin’ whoopee

                  You better keep her
                  I know it’s cheaper than makin’ whoopee

                  Gus Kahn and Walter Donaldson, 1928

                  BTW – I haven’t checked recently but used to you could find a card spinner at almost any book or gift shop featuring “If you were born in —-” cards, displaying the official stats on family income, costs of goods and so on for every year of the last century. Much interesting material to be gleaned by comparing data across decades.

                  1. Very good points. The houses most people were satisfied with in days gone by are small by today’s standards. Of course, as I was saying to my mother just this morning, we could easily get by on less space than we currently have (and have cluttered all to hell and back, but that’s a separate, more personal, issue. 😀 ).

                    The same is true of cars. We (as a society) used to be satisfied with much less than we are today. I could write entire blog posts about this subject based on my own personal observations.

                  2. I don’t know what the car I mentioned my parents buying new cost (it was a 1977 Chrysler LeBaron, bought in late ’78 or early ’79), but I did look up the original base sticker price of my first car, a 1975 Olds Vista Cruiser Station Wagon, and it was approximately $2,500.

                    The house I’m sitting in right now, which I believe my parents bought in 1956 with a VA loan, IIRC, cost $9,000 and was just about 1,000 sqft. Later, my father added a room over the cistern and made it the kitchen, making the former kitchen into my sister’s bedroom.

                    And the year I was born (1964), my mother was hired at GE for $56/wk.

                  3. “a “big” house might have been 1500 sq ft”

                    Woohoo! I have a big house!

                    Actually, the house is pretty good for our needs (two kids and a third on the way, plus some space-taking hobbies for the adults.) We could do with more storage (there’s no attic, really, and because of the saving of years’ worth of kid stuff and the lack of a shed for outdoor tools, the garage is pretty slammed), but by using space wisely, we’re doing pretty well in that regard.

                    Our *yard* is pretty much as big as you get in this area without going expensive, and it’s all backyard since we’re at the bottom of the cul-de-sac.

                    In short, if we had a chance to expand the house, yes, we probably could, but I have already figured out how to improve the house by adding on a mere 30 square feet (it’s all in where it goes), and though doubling the size *sounds* fun, I’d have to clean twice as much as well…

              2. Yeah, but you can’t legislate it. You just can’t. Economics doesn’t work that way. You legislate a minimum wage, the market finds other ways.
                I think what we should have is a safety net. And for that I mean, for desperate cases.
                Once upon a time I cleared $10 a day per day of working, after SS etc.
                It was what we needed for groceries, though.

                1. Many a working mom, by the time you factor in higher tax bracket, day care, higher grocery bills (less time for garden and cooking from scratch) and the other attendant expenses (e.g., workplace wardrobe) is possibly taking a net loss on her labor — but the cash flow seems higher and the family is insulated against dependence on a single income earner … although some might argue that the resultant tensions of having both adults working contributes to famil break-up.

                2. The problem with legislating it is that it will always be set too high. What I’m talking about is, “Let someone from a country with a lower cost of living do that, while we do something worth more.”

                  1. Well, yes — the purpose of a national minimum wage is to protect high living cost communities against competition from lower cost of living communities. There are good reasons to allow residents of upstate New York or Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to accept lower wages than residents of New York City or Detroit. There are no good reasons to disallow that.

                    A similar effect is found in letting people deduct state & local income taxes on their federal tax returns. People in lower tax jurisdictions are essentially subsidizing the income taxes in high tax rate areas.

                    Such policies also encourage games-playing when setting such things as Medicare reimbursement rates, which are community-based. I read some years back about the success of a local congressvermin in getting his Milwaukee constituents included in the Chicago region’s reimbursement zone, thus providing them a significantly higher rat than would have been dictated by fairer treatment.

              3. Once you accept a minimum wage in principle all that remains is haggling over price.

                One interesting compromise I’ve heard is abolition of minimum wage with state welfare payments providing its equivalent. Thus the state, not the employer, bears the cost of state-mandated charity, while workers are free to negotiate improvements in income without irrelevant barriers.

                I only glanced through the argument, happy to see some thinking toward getting us outside that particular box, and it was several years agone, so I cannot provide information about how it worked, what safeguards against exploitation existed (of workers by employers, of the state by both) nor what sort of phase out (if any — at some income level taxes would eliminate the benefit) might have been included.

                1. Well, in that vein, I have said before that a base minimum welfare level, with a scale that removes one dollar from the welfare payments for every two dollars earned, until the person is earning twice the base welfare level, would be far more equitable than the system we have now.

                  1. That might work if the welfare level were set low enough. Unfortunately you’d have to have just the ONE welfare program, and how likely is that? Otherwise you get dolists cooperating amongst themselves to stretch their dole payments into a comfortable situation. Sharing a state-provided house or apartment (even in violation of zoning laws governing number of residents) is the most obvious way. Living off of one person’s dole for food, and another’s for beer, and another’s for pot. Popping out babies in exchange for more SNAP, etc.

                    Welfare programs are *always* gamed by too many of the recipients and the politicians who want to buy their votes. Any schema to punish such abuse is decried as “treating people as things”, or “punishing the victim” or somesuch. Better to avoid that path altogether IMO. If you just *have* to give taxpayers’ money to people who don’t work, let it be because they’ve demonstrated physical or mental handicaps that prevent them from working, and check up on them regularly to ensure that they’re actually handicapped. People who claim back pain, then go on skiing vacations, can earn their taxpayer handouts in prison.

          1. By all means, include rural work. My first (paid) job was stacking alfalfa bales for 50 cents an hour. First job in town – I was embarrassed to pick up my first paychecks…that wasn’t real work.

            1. Main reason I got that job was that my folks managed the ranch– I’d be there anyways, so best to avoid legal issues by hiring me!

    3. “Peace. They keep using that word…”

      Dunno why, but I read that and the voice of Innigo Montoya immediately popped into my head.

      “Peace. You keep using that word. I do na think it means what you think it means.”

      ^^;;

  4. In all seriousness I do not think it’s fear they have. Not at all. It’s the purest of delusion in the certainty that they are correct, that this time is different and that it will work if only those, in their opinion, who fear their utopian vision will give them a chance. It’s not fear they have, but hatred of anyone who challenges their worldview.

    They believe they can get the world to sit around the campfire, holding hands, and sing Kumbaya.

    1. Funny that song should be so emblematic of the anti-theist Left, when the first stanza is addressed to God. “Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya…”

      M

  5. Maybe it’s just my lack of age and historical perspective, but … has any country that fell into a socialist revolution ever recovered from it and become sane? Or do they just continue to yo-yo around between a pragmatic dictatorship that sort of works, and a hysterical ideological leftist totalitarianism?

    That seems to be the mode that much of South America has been stuck in for a while. The moment they start trending even slightly liberal (here meaning democratic, free (original use)), the masses vote for someone like Hugo Chavez.

    1. If memory serves, Britain did, briefly. But John Major couldn’t hold out against New Labour and their wholesale importation of voters. And the EU is not helping.

    2. East Germany, several of the former USSR satellite nations, Poland.
      But in every one of those cases the socialism was imposed from a powerful external entity. Once the old Soviet Union came apart those bonds weakened and were shaken off.

        1. No, just a damn sight less socialist than they were 20 years ago.
          We, on the other hand have been heading in the opposite direction for far too long.

    3. Baltic countries, maybe. With their large ethnic Russian populations they seem to be kind of teetering a bit, but they also seem to be able to see things more clearly than my countrymen can right now in spite of the fact that we avoided the Soviet occupation. (More Finns than not seem to assume we can trust Russia to always act sensibly, that as long as we are useful to their country as a free country they can trade with and offer no threat – that ‘no threat’ part means Finns can occasionally get a bit shrill when anybody starts to talk about something like maybe trying to join the Nato because one shall never do ANYTHING which might offend or scare mother Russia and that is the way to stay safe has become a sacred tenet here – that country will not do something like they are just now doing in Ukraine to us. In spite of the fact that as a country Russia has a very long history of acting in a less than sensible manner.)

      But it’s also possible it’s a temporary situation. Right now the Soviet past is still close enough that more people than not still have personal memories of it. Maybe, once the older generations start to die off, the newer ones will fall victim to the rose colored glasses.

      1. This is the same country that fought the Russians to a standstill (and inflicted grossly disproportionate casualties) during the Winter War? The country that produced Simo Hayha?

        The rot is further along than I had thought.

        1. Generations of propaganda, in schools, universities, news sources… For five years after the war there was a group of Soviets (technically it was an Allied forces commission, in practice it was run by the Soviets) here keeping an eye on everything, after they left they had managed something of a purge in many places, and even after that there was also the constant fear of doing anything which might give the Soviets an excuse to occupy us, especially in the people who were in charge of things, none would have wanted to go in history as the person who maybe lost what had been so barely won.

          And the end result was a very accelerated infiltration by the left, and also by those who maybe did not have the ideology but were more than willing to pay lip service to it, all in the name of safety, of all of our institutions. And now, the rot is deep indeed.

            1. The really interesting question is how many of our left leaning people are some sort of true believers, ones for whom the ideology has become a part of themselves and who can’t give it up even if they get smacked in the face by reality because giving it up would destroy who they are – and how many are the kind who parrot the words because they have never really thought about the whole thing but who would drop it fast enough if it starts to obviously clash with reality. A lot of us are proud of what my parents’ generation did, and would not want to fall short themselves, and if Russia attacked without obvious provocation many might man up fast enough.

              Or not.

              The problem is that it can be almost impossible to tell the true believers from the more or less mentally lazy (well, most often preoccupied with their day to day life issues and unused to trying to think how this politics thing might really affect those so they just kind of go with the flow) plus just healthily self-interested (those who say whatever makes them popular with the right people, or at least doesn’t make them unpopular with the people they deal with daily, and don’t necessarily think about things beyond that).

              The first group is probably hopeless. Many in the second one might turn fast enough if they one day have to face these issues in a way which forces them to really face them.

              So I have no damn idea what might happen if the 1939 situation – something similar to the shelling of Mainila, and next thing you know the Russians are on full offensive – got a repeat. We might still do the same Finns did back then, and fight them to a standstill, or at least make Russia pay dearly for what they take. Or we might just fold. Or anything in between.

  6. “It never fails, but I post something about the threats facing the nation and some asinine and sanctimonious know-nothing comes by and drops a line about “I’m sorry you’re so afraid. I hope you find peace.””

    “They have treated lightly the injury to my people: “Peace, peace!” they say, though there is no peace. They have acted shamefully, committing abominations, yet they are not at all ashamed, they do not know how to blush. Therefore they will fall among the fallen; in the time of their punishment they shall stumble, says the LORD.”

  7. Part of the issue here is massive amounts of projection on the part of the Western Left–namely, they’re scared to death of a whole lot of things, especially the Right. Just look at the utterly hysterical reaction to any case where one of their reforms is rolled back or one of the Right’s reforms is moved forward. There’s no way that all of it is just political maneuvering (although a large chunk of it is.) The way they act, you’d think that, politically, the Left is run by John Pope or Joe Hooker and the Right run by Robert E. Lee, and that, if we ever get our way, within the next generation America will be a theocratic corporate oligarchy where everyone runs around shooting each other with the guns that said theocratic corporate oligarchy permits people to own (for some reason?). See “The Purge” for a prime example of said fantasy.
    But yeah. They’re scared that they’re going to lose. And scared people do stupid things. The unfortunate thing is that there are people on our side who are also scared that they’re going to lose. And scared people don’t think long-term very well.

    1. as you say, projection. They think that, if they lose, we’d treat them the way they’d like to treat us…in their most vivid fantasies.

      1. Oh, they should fear us. After all, if we win, we’ll be free to totally ignore their ranting and petty diktats. Think of the harm that it will do to their self-esteem! And since – in their view – all the creeping infringements and restrictions they’ve inflicted on others “for their own good” are still not enough to produce the utopia they promise, of *course* they react frantically when one or two are rolled back. And why they use the over-the-top rhetoric describing even the most minor rollbacks (like returning to the same rules as 2011, not 1811 or even 2001) to call their supporters to “war” while vilifying their political opponents as thuggish subhumans who must be leashed rather than fellow citizens with legitimate concerns.

        Mind you, if it ever *does* come to the open war they seem to be angling for they do have something tangible to fear: by and large, the people they are doing their best to antagonize tend to have more military experience, familiarity with firearms, and – most importantly – think that “violence never settles anything” is a bad joke rather than a universal truth.

        I’d prefer, if possible, that we roll back their changes peaceably in the ballot box. But if they keep gaming the system to subvert or ignore the democratic process obviously enough to annoy the vast majority who *will* ignore less-obvious measures . . . well, it may not be pretty.

        And if it ever comes to the day of the barricades, guillotines, and tumbrels I have a little list, I have a little list . . . And I think I still know how to tie a hangman’s knot, for that matter. (Who knew *that* merit badge would be so useful?)

        1. Is there anything, besides having to spend their own money, that progs fear more than being ignored? Ok, besides having to spend their own money and being forced to take the consequences of their actions.

  8. “The Arrow of Time” and “the path of history is ever forwards” works kinda OK if you are talking about theories of speciation and adaptation. Not so much human “progress,” otherwise we wouldn’t have had, oh, teh volcano in Indonesia that blew in the early 500s, late antiquity, Magyars, Huns, the 14th century, the 17th century, the Shoah . . . Unless you look at the sum total of civilization to be technology. In which case you end up with the cybermen, daleks ™, and other lovely things.

  9. “The future doesn’t automatically belong to the left.”

    Of course it does. History always moves in the Progressive direction. This is because the Ministry of Truth will reliably rewrite history to make Progressive programs non-Progressive. Prohibition? Involuntary eugenic sterilizations? Segregation? (I was taught in schools that segregation just happened to start to be allowed in the early 19th century, unlike the laws that had been slapped down earlier. No one told me that it was the great Progressive Woodrow Wilson who was to blame. And he was. He segregated the federal workforce on top of letting the South do as it pleased.)

    1. Woodrow Wilson was scum. He segregated the Federal government, dismissed all black postmasters (on a, to paraphrase, “no white should have a black boss” basis). He removed/segregated black naval personnel (which had been integrated since the Navy’s founding). He dismissed the senior black Army officer. He had various governmental and non-governmental groups spying upon labor leaders, civil rights leaders, political opponents, and anybody who seemed sympathetic to the previous, from the US entry into WWI through Armistice, and in some cases past the peace treaty. A more evil president we did not see again until Obama. Even FDR, tyrant that he was, was better.

  10. I’m afraid of people who are afraid of the wrong things. Which is worse, outlawing gay marriage or the interest rates on federal notes, bonds and bills going up 2%?

      1. Call it a year. As the cost of paper went up, the addition to the debt would balloon causing the need for more debt, lather, rinse, repeat.
        IIRC (and it’s been a while) the debt is the fourth largest cost on the budget. I wonder how many people can calculate 2% of, what is it now? 17 trillion?

          1. And how would that much extra drain mess things up fiscally? And that would be every dang year! That is half the current deficit (which is a weasel concept the way the left uses it). And at what point would a 2% rise cause an increase in risk enough to become 3% or 4%?

              1. Good point. I wonder how much of the national debt is set to expire in what time frame? I do know they are selling new debt all the time (Every week?) and to a certain extent those sales are used to make payments on the old debt.

                So as you point out, a 2% increase wouldn’t apply to any old debt, just to any new debt that is incurred. I’ll have to see if there is a place online to find out how the debt is structured among bills, notes and bonds and how quickly it actually turns.

                1. One of the criticisms of Democrat Administrations has been their over-reliance on short-term debt. Sure, the interest rates tend to be lower but the strategy is dependent upon being able to refinance at similarly low rates, rather than locking in low long-tern funding.

                  Think of this as refusing to take a twenty-year mortgage but instead taking out a series of two-year balloon mortgages. Most of your payment goes to interest, leaving your principle largely undiminished. Because all you are paying is the interest your payments will be lower, especially if you ignore your refinancing costs. But if interest rates go up you’re in a heap of trouble and even if they don’t, at the twenty-year point your principle, instead of being paid off, is undiminished.

                  This is a strategy for those planning to move on.

      1. Heck if I know. Whatever the left is using as a hobgoblin to scare the rank and file. “Don’t think about anything real! Worry about !”

      2. Well, it was only a few years ago here in CA that the roving heavily armored squads of state police were breaking into dwellings in the wee hours of the morning and carting off Gay folks who were living in sin together. I remember the noise as the armored wagons roared down the streets at 3AM, the shouting over megaphones, the frogmarched half dressed neighbors, the local informers getting their cash reward payments on the sidewalk in front of teh now empty houses…

        Oh wait, that never happened (here), people were just left alone. Nevermind.

        1. And don’t forget the Mormon missionaries working as door to door informants for the anti-gay marriage police.

          (for the non-Californians, there was an ad that aired during the Prop 8 campaign that had LDS missionaries barging into the home of a same-sex couple)

            1. Yeah, the only time I can imagine Mormon missionaries barging into a house is if they saw it was on fire and were trying to help someone get out.

              1. well, I could imagine them barging in, too, if say they saw someone inside getting stabbed or beaten. (In this scenario, I want Larry C. to be the mormon missionary in question.)

                1. I’m trying to imagine opening the door and seeing Larry C in the Missionary Uniform. What do you do then?

                2. Years ago the Beloved Spouse & I read about a study done of protesters outside of abortion clinics. Subjective evaluations of the clinic workers’ impression of the volume and vitriol of the protests were compared with objective measures, such as decibel levels.

                  The perceived volume proved much greater than the measured level. It appears a whisper is like a shout to the alarmed mind.

                  Just so are the quiet, polite urgings of young Mormon missionaries an intolerable aggression against those who decree themselves their own god.

  11. I remember when the women in the beauty pageants started asking for “world peace.” As if… I knew it was just a way to win the pageant, except asking for “whirled peas” would have been more practical and more apt to happen. So what am I babbling about? If we lay down our arms we have lost and are on our way to the “peace of the grave”– so never ever lay down your arms. And I include wit as part of being armed.

  12. I don’t think the chaos will play out the way the Progressives think. Oh, there’s going to be a brutal stretch of mental adjustment.

    But we’re going on the second generation of electronic game playing. Of people growing up figuring out problems, finding stuff to use in a fight. Movies with twists at the end where the good side turns out to be the bad side. Where they suddenly realize the Evil Overlord is _right_.

    I’m not sure but that we’ve all been _trained_ to deal with what’s coming, if it gets really bad. The Progressives need to wake up and find a way to soft land the economy in a flood of jobs, if they actually think they can stay in power.They need to learn fear.

      1. Why did I think of what happened to both Deathstars? [Evil Grin]

        Not that the progressives have the “Force” on there side. [Wink]

          1. Nah. That would be way too much like work. Besides, they’re pacifists at heart. They couldn’t deal with the deaths of all those innocents that were forced to work on the battle stations.

            1. Besides, we had maintenance reroute those exhaust ports and are now venting that exhaust into the main weapons array dish. No handy trenches there. No worries.

  13. “Standing athwart history, yelling Stop” was coined in 1955, when it really did look as if the future would be Leftist (specifically, Soviet Communist.) Back then it meant fighting even though the cause seemed hopeless. These days it’s said more to honor the prophets who coined it than to describe one’s own mind.

  14. /**I’ve said before and will maintain that the whole thing about “Standing athwart history yelling stop” is a very bad thing, because it presumes the future is leftist.

    *shrug* Proverbs 26; you’re on the ‘lest you become like him’ side, and the Athwart are on the ‘lest he think himself wise’ side. Tactical difference, rather than substance.

    ****

    I scribbled down a half-thought about the “what are you so afraid of?” thing last night– a cousin’s girlfriend demanded that of my husband and I after we were trading home defense tactics with the rest of the cousins. (I’m not sure if my concealed carry or the hidden knife in the kids’ room was the tipping point, there.)

    Recently someone in the comments pointed out that guys often lack perspective in what females face– for a guy, facing someone that’s half again their size and at least 25% stronger is a really bad day. For women, that’s a starting point.

    That cousin’s girlfriend was reacting like reality was purely male, or like she’ll always be the biggest, strongest person in a fight, and there is no tactical possibility to overcome it. Said girl was taller than me– who isn’t?– but not bigger, and I’m pretty sure I could have hauled her out of a building if I had to. (A rule of thumb I picked up from my Marine techs– they routinely had the smallest guy in their group, Ace, do a fireman’s carry for the biggest guy, Mach. Mach is the one that picked up the front of my car like it was easy….)
    es of the unarmed robber that started the whole Ferguson mess:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/15/ferguson-police-releasing-name-of-officer-who-shot-michael-brown/

    They’re about halfway down, where the clerk who looks like a grade schooler faced by a guy who graduated last year, and if the stickers on the doorway are where they usually are the clerk is NOT just amazingly tiny…. Brings a little perspective to who was “unarmed,” if the guy who died was the robber or not he fit the description, which means that he wasn’t unarmed the way that, say, I would be unarmed.

    You can teach yourself reactions, sure– I almost chucked my phone at my husband yesterday because I was so busy reading a fight scene that I didn’t hear the car pull up, but I DID hear the door open and knew the kids were asleep and couldn’t have gotten past me anyways– but that’s not going to do so much against a big guy, even if it bought me time to jump up and grab the bat near the door.

    1. –Recently someone in the comments pointed out that guys often lack perspective in what females face– for a guy, facing someone that’s half again their size and at least 25% stronger is a really bad day. For women, that’s a starting point.–

      About two generations ago most guys probably did kind of get it. Never, ever, ever, ever hit a woman, it was drilled into them. Your job is to protect women.

      Now that the media presents most women as superwomen and that it somehow violates the fabric of the universe for men to protect them, I actually think a significant number of people – male and female — believe the the only reason a woman is not as strong as a man is because she doesn’t work out enough.

      A while back in my environs a female college athlete was killed on the highway. One of the investigators actually made a comment along the lines of it must have been two people because she was an athlete.

      It was one guy. The investigator who said that was not the one who caught him.

      1. “I warned her as graphically as I could that she was already well down the slippery slope leading to poverty and misery—that, as I knew from the experience of untold patients, she would soon have a succession of possessive, exploitative, and violent boyfriends, unless she changed her life. I told her that in the past few days, I had seen two women patients who had had their heads rammed down the lavatory, one who had had her head smashed through a window and her throat cut on the shards of glass, one who had had her arm, jaw, and skull broken, and one who had been suspended by her ankles from a tenth-floor window to the tune of, “Die, you bitch!”

        “I can look after myself,” said my 17-year-old.

        “But men are stronger than women,” I said. “When it comes to violence, they are at an advantage.”

        “That’s a sexist thing to say,” she replied.

        A girl who had absorbed nothing at school had nevertheless absorbed the shibboleths of political correctness in general and of feminism in particular.

        “But it’s a plain, straightforward, and inescapable fact,” I said.

        “It’s sexist,” she reiterated firmly.”

        http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_1_oh_to_be.html

        1. I speculate (though I doubt the girl being here quoted grasps this on this level) that if there’s any point to that stance, it would be that Dr. D’s observation was “sexist” not because it’s not true, but because (she thinks) it’s being cited as justification for treating people differently, or requiring them to act differently. In other words, I may be able to clean the average girl’s clock, but it’s sexist to suggest that’s a valid ethical reason for her to obey my instructions.

          That is not, of course, what Dr. D is suggesting; he is telling her the reason she should want to get away from people who will back up unacceptable instructions with irresistible force. But that is the basic problem with politicizing everything: when simply acknowledging reality incurs politically unpalatable consequences, you can’t acknowledge reality without betraying your politics, and the cognitive dissonance may well be resolved in your physical disfavour.

        2. Every time I read a story like this I sort of cry a little for something that’s lost. Yet the typical Lib won’t see the damage. This sort of thing is caused by the success of the Liberal welfare state, not it’s failure. The liberal welfare state subjects it’s victims to an administrative collective of people who assume because of the better start they got that the natural order is for the betters of the administrative state to tell the lessers how to run their lives and hating the lessers for making their failures the responsibility of the betters. The fact that those responsibilities were something that the betters fought hard to get and that the lessers would be better off without the betters and there nanny like dictates escapes the betters completely. To a better it’s only the moral superiority that matters and the lessers are only real in collective abstract.

      2. When bringing some rocks from the creek where I live for a woman I was working with to use in her flower bed as stepping stones, I told her that I had used my (then 12-year-old) son to see if the stones were too heavy. She acted a tad offended and said something like, “I don’t think you had to worry about that, I’m not weak.” And she wasn’t – she did rock climbing – yet, when I casually one-handed her the first stone and let go, it dropped a good six inches and she made a little grunt. Then she said, “Ok, maybe it’s a good thing you checked.”

        1. There are people I don’t make those protestations to. I’m also very strong for a woman, but one of my close friends is a mason (In the bricklayer sense, not the society of sense) and semi-recently out of the Marine Corps. He’s one of the few people I can neither out muscle nor out leverage. (I’d rather fight a 6’4″ guy than him! I know how to get good angles on the big guys, and use the fact I’m almost a foot shorter than them to MY advantage. And yes, he and I practice together from time to time.) I know my limits. I know when to call in help.

          1. Interesting thing is that I’m not even that strong for my size, but when you weigh over 280lbs (I’m bigger now, though trying to backtrack), there’s a certain amount of strength necessary simply to not qualify as handicapped.

    2. A Kansas State Highway Patrol officer made a traffic stop on an elderly lady a while back for speeding on U.S. 166 Eastbound at Mile Marker 73 just East of Sedan, KS.

      The Officer asked for her driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. The lady took out the required information and handed it to him. In with the cards the Officer was somewhat surprised (due to her advanced age) to see she had a conceal carry permit. He looked at her and ask if she had a weapon in her possession at this time.

      She responded that she indeed had a .45 automatic in her glovebox.
      Something — body language, or the way she said it — made him want
      to ask if she had any other firearms.

      She did admit to also having a 9mm Glock in her center console.
      Now He had to ask one more time if that was all. She responded once again that she did have just one more, a .38 special
      in her purse.

      So again he asked her if there were any other weapons in the car. She admitted that there was an Bushmaster AR and a Remington 1100 in the trunk.

      He then asked her what was she so afraid of.

      She looked him right in the eye and said, “Not a ****ing thing!”

      1. I didn’t include it because it didn’t add to the point, but– I shamelessly stole from the d*mn version of the same joke for my reaction. And the cousin gf backed off. 😀

    3. “[W]hat are you so afraid of?”

      I am afraid of being caught by surprise, of facing anticipatable exigencies without a plan or recourse.

      I am afraid of being caught unprepared, so I try to think things through so as to anticipate what circumstances may require, that I may have ready the necessary tools.

      I am afraid of being caught without a plan, without having done a “fire drill” or stocking a “first aid kit.”

      I am afraid of relying upon clueless ninnies for my and my loved ones’ safety.

  15. I read a lot of news, and a lot of viewpoints. Many of the left pundits and politicians think they’re winning. They think Bloomberg’s money is going to make a difference in the 2nd Amendment debate. They think………..

    The point being that the other side may not be as afraid as some would hope. They have power and corruption on their side. They are capable of acquiring a lot of funds for elections. And they fight as dirty as anyone.

    I’d like to believe they’re wrong. But all I have personally to fight them {at this time}, is my vote.

    My point is, that it ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings, and she’s kinda quiet right now.

    Or if you prefer baseball to opera, “it ain’t over until it’s over.”

  16. They on the other hand are convinced that I’m afraid of their rule because I hate minorities, gays, prosperity, equality and all goodness, possibly including chocolate and macademia.

    “Macademia”? Is that your new name for the nuts in Academia? (I love typos, but I’m running anyway)

  17. Those who believe they are progressive or leftist are neither. They are authoritarian who believe they can transform the world into their fantasy utopia. They keep being shocked by reality.

  18. The West is declining, thanks to the left, while the Islamists are on the rise. Even if leftists manage to capture the West, what good would it do them if Islamists take over, since the Islamists don’t like leftists? And since leftists haven’t figured out that Islamists don’t like them, they will welcome them with open arms, right up to the moment when they are rounded up to have their heads cut off.

      1. I don’t know whom you could possibly be thinking of. Sayyid Qutb? Ayatollah Khomeini? Both were extremely anti-secular, and if there’s one thing one can say about leftists, it is that they are strongly secular. Even the religious ones (if there are any) prefer a secular society.

        1. Facism is a variant of leftism.

          They aren’t Marxists, but one can be both religious and socialist or fascist.

          1. Well, there are “religions” with hidden leftisms in them. Like Liberation Theology and its spawn Black Liberation Theology that brought our current president to “religion”.
            Basically they are marxism with all the atheism removed and god added in place. I’m sure some of Reverend Wrights flock are deeply religious folks. 0bama was not in any way religious, but in Wright he found his politics spewed from the pulpit, and it got him in the faces of certain folks who would help his career along. Otherwise I think he is as religious as I am, and I be an atheist. 0bama would rather be golfing than sitting in church … or running the country … for which I am thankful. Think of the damage he could do if he really tried hard at his job!

            1. Obama’s problem with religion is that it requires him to believe in something greater than himself:-P

  19. Once when I was an E-3 in the navy and in civies before leaving the base, a pair of men also in civies approached and one began to berate me for something. I don’t think I caught it then or ever. I didn’t know the men, were they officers, enlisted above or even below my rating? When the barater paused to say “You don’t need to cry about this.”
    His friend spoke for the first time- “You had better stop, he’s not crying, he’s mad as hell and about to start swinging.” and laughed at his friend. That broke the mood and I could laugh with the friend. The other man shut up and they walked away with his fiend giving me a wink as they left.

    The Left is that way, Obama with his- Cling to their guns and religion; Eric Holder with his “Whites are afraid” thing or the claims of ‘Homophobia” is one serious mistake. As stated above, it is not fear but anger.

    There is another point that needs to be brought out. Many people didn’t read the blog where the one that shall not be named wrote about murder statistics. He broke it down, Black kill 9.6 times per 100K population. Hispanics kill at 7.6 times per 100K and Whites kill at .3 per 100K. In other words, Whites are not nearly as violent as the other demographics. That’s why they have gotten away with as much as they have.

    South America has had numerous revolutions, Africa is known for tribal warfare to extinction. Europe and the US are noted for wars between governments (Socialists fight each other) not revolutions. When we do fight, it stops at a declaration of victory, not at extinction.
    If the White (Conservative) population of Western Europe or America ever do revolt, it will pretty much stop the minute the enemy capitulates. There won’t be any backlash. There may or may not be some deportation of Illegals; but, I wouldn’t be too sure of that. We just aren’t the type people they say we are.

    1. Excepting the UK and Scandinavia, most Europe nations have gone through at least a couple of revolutions since the French Revolution. France went a number, from the French Revolution, Napoleon’s Republic and Empire, the restoration of monarchy, the circa 1830 revolution, and what are essentially a pair at the end of the Franco-Prussian War. Most of the nations that once comprised the Austro-Hungarian Empire went through several between WWI and two, with the overthrow of the Hapsburgs, the overthrow of whatever government replaced the Hapsburgs, possibly another interwar revolution, a post-WW2 Communist revolution (or at least purge), and a post-Communist revolution. Let’s not bring up the Balkans.

  20. Didn’t the Soviet citizens have a joke in the 1950’s about how the past was always changing and the future was always the same?

    And I, too, am reminded again that progressives offer the security of the slave and the equality of the grave.

    1. It’s been related to me from People Who Were There that that was a joke (among very very many subversive jokes) in the late 1970s.

        1. As with the best jokes, it is also true.

          And it points out one of our greatest weapon against the self righteous left: Humor and Mockery. Our TWO greatest weapons are Humor and Mockery, and a cynical eye for the power grabbers. THREE! Our THREE greatest weapons…

          I’ll come in again.

      1. I still remember a dispute where the leftist told another commenter that he hoped that that guy’s daughter shot him with the gun he had been talking about. I pointed out that because he had violent fantasies like that, yes, he shouldn’t own a gun, but that doesn’t meant he’s allowed to project his own limitations on us.

    1. Maybe…

      Remember, there were hunter-gatherers here before there were immigrants. If things get bad enough, we could end up reverting to *that*.

        1. Probably a touch of both. You’ll have enclaves of people affiliated by beliefs, and enclaves of people who prefer a looser set of alliances and a less restrictive social contract. I suspect we’d see more, smaller concentrations of skilled trades (like Puritan New England) surrounded by farms and ranches (pioneers), especially in areas with concentrations of natural resources.

    2. Define that. If you mean the US will return to being a nation of immigrants who really try to integrate and really subscribe to the ideals of the US constitution… I’d agree with you. If not, I suggest you study the origins of the US.

  21. According to Leftie fearmongers, Libertarians either want to create a dictatorship to dwarf the Third Reich, or turn the world into Somalia (the ideal Libertarian state, I’m told). I wish they’d get their lies straight.

  22. As a relatively new reader of your blog, I noticed the Heinlein quote on your masthead. Well, I started reading Heinlein when I was 7 and loved every minute of it. But clearly Heinlein was not a student of history, because there have been long periods of time in which societal conditions and the level of knowledge and technology have worsened, sometimes drastically. Toynbee said that all great civilizations die from suicide, and I think we may have entered such a period. In which case, all that right thinking folks can do is preserve as much as possible, especially their families.

      1. Very long, apparently. But while it will be a fine thing if humanity reaches the stars after the next Glacial period, it will be quite frustrating for those of us who have been dead 20,000 years.

  23. I’m not afraid that the Left will rule. I’m afraid that they’ll break so many of our institutional safeguards in the quest to rule that we’ll wind up a (more or less disguised) military dicatorship, because that’s the default human condition from which the Constitution keeps us.

      1. At which point, we’ll probably end up having to work with them to try and get rid of the dictator.
        Maybe they’ll have an apoplexy at the thought of working with us.

      2. For example, the Senate filibuster will never return.

        You can argue it is an anachronistic, unfair device by which a minority once denied our African-American brothers and sisters full participation in our nation’s political process (it was.)

        You can argue it was an important safety check on the tyranny of a small majority, ensuring that government power was not exercised except with significant political support (it was.)

        What you cannot credibly argue is that the tradition can be restored. That bell cannot be unrung, and even if the Senate Republicans reimpose that rule, everybody knows it can be un-imposed by a mere 51 party hacks.

        We also know that the Senate Democrats (and their MSM allies) who defended the filibuster’s importance when a Republican-controlled Senate considered restraining it … are exactly the hypocritical hacks we knew them to be.

  24. I don’t FEAR leftists. Bunch of blithering fools. What I FEAR is the ignorance, willful and personal, as well as state taught/sanctioned, that they are inflicting on people.Oh the violence and bloodshed they constantly and consistently inflict upon the world in their blind arrogance. I don’t fear them. I hold them in the deepest contemp. A contempt that’s tainted with a rage so powerful it freakin scares me. And I’m the one who’ll calmly sit here and suggest that what the world needs is a massive depopulation ala Genghis Khan and the Hordes

    1. That they claim their ignorance as intelligence is its most damning aspect. When you are the smartest people in any room you don’t have to listen to the cretins suggesting you might want to change out of those new robes, they make you look fat.

  25. “First of all they think history comes with directional arrows.”

    This is one of the more pernicious ideas generally accepted by otherwise intelligent people. My take on it is that it stems from the common misperception that EVOLUTION comes with arrows; that is that the Theory of Evolution states that the force of evolution moves organisms from simple crudity to complex wonderfulness.

    Of course, Darwin said no such thing.

    Nevertheless, the Theory of Evolution – or at least the common impression of it – had and still has a huge effect on cultural issues that at first glance have nothing to do with biology, zoology, or even science. The urge to hammer social or economic data until it can be made to fit the evolutionary model (as popularly understood) can be seen in discussions of Art, Architecture, Music, Politics, and Economics. Marxism, the biggest deranged fantasy ever cooked up in the freezing halls of the British Museum, depends mightily on the idea of directional evolution to justify itself. And millions have fallen for it.

    1. And yet strangely, the strongest adherents to this “directional approach” will shriek in dismay if you label any group or practice “backwards” or “primitive.” Except, of course, if applied to conservatives, libertarians, and anybody who happens to disagree that strong, powerful, and intrusive central government is the direction of progress. Then they are derided as backwards, racist, fascist, or “bitter clingers.” Cannibals, cultures that oppress women, that enslave and conquer, all get a free pass, as long as they are not “white Europeans” or “white Americans” or Americans or Europeans of dissenting political viewpoints. OK, I’m going to stop ranting now and go back to writing code.

      1. In fairness, the Romans did evolve from a democratic republic to a all-powerful central government.

        Can’t think of many other examples, and my History Fu is fair-to-middling.

    2. My take on it is that it stems from the common misperception that EVOLUTION comes with arrows; that is that the Theory of Evolution states that the force of evolution moves organisms from simple crudity to complex wonderfulness.

      Of course, Darwin said no such thing.
      Darwin most certainly said things evolved from the simple to the complex.

      Haeckel even more so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_%28science%29#mediaviewer/File:Haeckel_arbol_bn.png

      1. I think it was “Kicking the Sacred Cows” that had an interesting line about Darwin’s theory fitting in well with the mindset of the time. The Brits were at the top of the world food-chain, so OF COURSE they were the epitome of mankind, and the theory helped prove it.

    3. Indeed, natural selection is a completely mechanical process whose direction is entirely derived from the number of surviving offspring of those with traits valued by civilization and low mutation load vs the opposite. The contradiction of civilization is that its protection often produces a surplus of lower intelligence or generally unfit individuals.

Comments are closed.