The Inevitable Emmanuel Goldstein

Update:  I keep forgetting to do this!  The Big Ship and the Wise Old Owl is free for another three days or so.

Yesterday, I thought it was safe to echo a chart on FB showing the relative economic freedom of states in the US. Note, that it was a picture/meme and I didn’t dwell very deeply on their premises. Some of the placements seemed funny – Colorado as high as 17? Really? – but most in general accorded to the “feel” of states I’ve lived in or where I have friends. So I echoed, having seen it while I was logging in to pm a friend.

Why didn’t you guys warn me that we’re in full saturnalia, and fools are running around with underwear on head pretending to be kings? Sheesh, you’d think you would.

The first entrant was a man yelling that the freedom of these states was just freedom of corporations to screw the little man, and we needed more regulations, more, more, more. We’ll ignore for a moment that like soylent green corporations are people, and that people work for and in corporations, and that in fact corporate profits feed retirement funds.

Instead, let’s think of what more regulations do. You see, more regulations means more unintended consequences, and more need for lawyers and corporate accountants and stuff. And that means that more regulations makes it hard for small businesses, be they single proprietorships or corporations (for instance, yours truly is two corporations. It was needed to get my full evil card) to compete with large corporations and ultimately creates a crony capitalist system.

When some of this was pointed to Notary supergenius (don’t look at me. He’s the one who called himself Notary as a first name.) he linked his own blog in which he explains Ayn Rand was a soviet agent bringing libertarian fascism/communism to the US. You only think I am joking.

When we laughed, pointed fingers and made duck noises, he called us mean, said we were attacking his profession (instead of his idiocy in using it as a badge!) and flounced off, deleting his posts as he went, in case someone suspected he was a fool. (Of course this gave the great and magnificent Larry Correia, who intervened this morning, to reconstruct his posts from the replies and add in moon ferrets which, I must say, made Notary Supergenius sound SO MUCH more coherent.)

At this point we were mobbed (trust me, the man is a mob) by this lefty who thinks posting colorful charts is a discussion, and who doesn’t get anything about the statistics he quotes. Then (heaven help me!) he wanted my opinion of TR’s trust busting. I told him I didn’t think very highly of TR’s politics, but I haven’t researched it in any detail, so I wasn’t going to pronounce.

At this point a gentleman who has written for Baen came in. I will not name him because – eye roll – should I ever lose my mind I’d hope people extend me the like courtesy. ( My grandmother used to say “May G-d grant me my mind up to the hour of my death” — she lost it the last two days, but it was still a pretty good run.  And I pray likewise.) But he is the proximate reason for this post. Which is why we’ll leave him for last.

At this point a gentleman with a German name came in and told me that free markets are unstable and self-destruct, which is why they need government to regulate them, but this doesn’t make it socialist, etc… At which point I pointed out the free market just is. It doesn’t self-destroy, it changes to accommodate stupid regulations, but it exists everywhere.

I meant, of course, the free market that exists say under the name of “black market” in socialist paradises.

However, this second Supergenius! Self-trapped immediately by telling me that ahah, he’d got me. There has never been a real free market without regulation anywhere, and that’s how we know it needs regulation or it would self-destruct.

You know, my desk is golden oak. You’d think it wouldn’t dent that way. Do these people hear themselves. “This thing that never existed is unstable.” Um… ‘mkay. That isn’t even good Science Fiction.

Anyway, Larry Correia showed up this morning with the armor of righteousness and the sarcasm of nuclear power and all the snow flake seals have run and hid, which is good, because it means I can now write. (It’s already twelve o’clock, not a whore is dressed, the pots aren’t emptied, and the streets are full of Spanish Sailors – found in an old phrase book – or IOW “I must finish this d*mn book and I will not spend my time dissecting internet trolls.”)

BUT to return to number three screamer on the thread. This one came in hot and heavy, yelling that the “free” states weren’t free. They were owned by the Koch brothers. And besides, the Koch brothers are buying this nation’s politics and scream, scream, scream.

When I see “Koch brothers” in a political argument, what I see the person posting doing is this:

I looked up – not hard – a chart which told me the Kochs are actually the number 23 and 24 donors in the nation when it comes to political causes. Most of the others are above them are of course liberal. Which I suppose is why the liberals fixate on the libertarian Kochs. (Who are, as we all know soviet spies for libertarian fascism, just like Ayn Rand. We also know that Freedom is slavery, poverty is wealth, and Eurasia is a cherry pancake.)

But then I wondered why the liberals always need a bad guy in their narrative of the world.

Look, I don’t like Obama very much. (Eh!) And when it comes to liberal journalists who try to suppress the truth and paint it with lies, I could quote puppet masters “I’d turn my gun away from a puppet master to shoot one of the renegades” (metaphorically, of course.)

But the thing is I know where they come from (the concerted attack on western civilization) and what they stand for (a series of idiocy rooted in Rosseau and Marx) and I acknowledge that they are a social trend of sorts, one that has be reckoned with.

The only thing I hate about them is their total inability to process argument, and their insistence on screaming memes and talking points to protect themselves from argument.

But then I sort of expect this from a cult, which is what they are. You can’t be argued out of a position you weren’t argued but instead brainwashed and “felt” (“feeled”) into.

So why do they need to personalize the “enemy” as one person, and one person selected more or less at random. For instance, why did they paint George W. Bush – a Christian socialist at heart) – as a wild-eyed laissez faire guy? And why do they make the Kochs – Libertarians – as “fascists.”

And then I realized it doesn’t matter. They need someone to hate precisely because their ideas don’t work in the real world at all. So a wrecker must be identified, who is keeping the utopia from coming true – otherwise their ideas would be false and that’s impossible, of course – and the characteristics attributed to him which are most convenient to the left discourse.

This happens more or less automatically. One of them identifies someone (George Bush because he kept Al Gore from stealing the election. How dare he?) and starts screaming and the other ones fall behind because they desperately need someone to blame for the abject failure of their policies. Hence, we get these unreasoning, mob-screaming fests about the hated name apropos of anything, whenever they feel their beliefs are threatened.

These two minutes of hate would be funny, if it weren’t for the fact that real people are on the other side of them and COULD get hurt.

In fact, in every communist attempted utopia in the world, they have been hurt, by the massive scores. Entire classes of people – Kulaks, Ukrainians, Middle Men – were designated “wreckers and spoilers” and the graves filled with their corpses.

And that, THAT is the worst feature of the communist/socialist/progressive beliefs. Because they THINK they’re scientific (they wouldn’t know real science if it bit them on the buttocks) and that their victory is pre-ordained, they can’t examine their mistakes, backtrack or admit error.

Instead, they must forge ever “Forward” as their societies collapse, their economies falter, and Emmanuel Goldstein must be killed again and again.

And that is why we must stand up and say “no more.”

I couldn’t care less about the Koch brothers. Never met them, though a friend of mine once worked for them. I’m sure they couldn’t care less about the pointing and shrieking either.

BUT I don’t care to have people arbitrarily declared objects of hate.

Leave Eurasia alone. Calm down and go look for your paradise in the ever-after where men are different. Found the Convent of our Lady of Perpetual Redistribution and show us how communism can totally work on your own time and dime.

Just leave us the f*ck alone, and stop screaming for the blood of innocents. We don’t care how crazy YOU are. We just don’t want to be forced to dance in your macabre saturnalia.

 

 

276 responses to “The Inevitable Emmanuel Goldstein

  1. Ah, this fits with the people declaring that looting and arson are not violent. The unspoken assumption being that property is a sign of being evil/richewing/libertarian/greedy/bourgeois/—ist, and destroying it is a necessary part of the revolution. So how can it be violent? Only non-believers would say such a thing.

    And it was the full moon yesterday.

  2. “Leave Eurasia alone. Calm down and go look for your paradise in the ever-after where men are different. Found the Convent of our Lady of Perpetual Redistribution and show us how communism can totally work on your own time and dime.”

    I think this has been tried (hippie communes) and mostly failed! If they can’t make it work on a small scale, WHY do they keep trying to force it on the whole world?!?

    • because they think it’s a matter of scale. Or rather, they “feels” that if everyone just did as they told him, we’d have paradise. (rolls eyes.)

    • Misery loves company. And we’re not equal unless all are miserable in the approved manners of misery.

      I’m only half joking sadly.

    • It’s still tried fairly often; Okanogan County finds the bodies of some “back to nature” folks every year or two, after the thaw. How incredibly cold it is during the winter, and how much food and fuel you need, is frequently not considered.

    • The reason it didn’t work on the small scale is because useful people would get fed up with being exploited and leave, increasing the concentration of freeloaders until the community went into a death spiral. Make the commune big enough, so that there’s no “outside” for the productive to escape to, and they’ll have no choice but to support the parasites currently calling for socialism. At least, that’s how the “thinking” goes.

      • William O. B'Livion

        Yeah, because there’s only one way to escape.

        • Nobody has ever accused communists of suffering from an overabundance of intellect.

          • Because I don’t have enough shame to not quote myself:

            “From Each according to his Abilities, To Each according to his Needs” is a pretty sweet deal, if you’re a needy incompetent, but it makes a slave of the capable and independent. Advocating such a position says an awful lot about the individual who does so, and which side of the equation he expects to be on.
            — Richard Chandler (10/15/04)

            • Professor Badness

              “From Each according to his Abilities, To Each according to his Needs”
              You know, that would be a great sentiment, but only if every single person involved was altruistically interested in the good of the individual and the society.
              And the way humans are, that isn’t going to happen.

    • Try 1830 and British Robert Owens (I think) father of atheism used his Christian Father in Law’s money to buy the township of New Haven, USA. Set up a communist system. Went under in less than two years. He tried again in England with the same result. That Christian must have really loved his daughter. The Germans set up two Communist communities in Texas in the same year, both are now ghost towns. I don’t think either of them lasted more than a couple of years. One of our Texas historians probably knows though. Even the Pilgrims tried, Thanksgiving was because they switched from Communism to Capitalism to avoid starvation.

      There is such a long history of failure; but, it repeats every generation.

      • The Other Sean

        I remember a college archaeology/anthropology course on agriculture. One of the interesting things was that when the Vietnamese government switched from state-run farms to long-term leasing of farmland to farmers who could grow and sell the crops, productivity doubled. This was under what is still officially a communist regime.

        Raoul Castro’s regime in Cuba has made the news because they’re making some baby steps towards allowing legitimate small-scale free enterprise (as opposed to the black market).

        The Chinese communists sold off much of what were once state enterprises, and they’ve seen tremendous growth since.

        Anybody notice a pattern? Why can’t our own “liberals” get with that program, instead of Euro-socialism?

        • William O. B'Livion

          Because they don’t care about how low the bottom of the scale is, only what the delta between the bottom and the top is.

          • They don’t even care about that. They care about power and prestige and a free market, with its stubborn insistence on rewarding competence, denies them both.

            • William O. B'Livion

              Maybe the leaders at the for of the movement, but I’ve known *way* too many progressives (I could put a period there) who really honestly believed that their lives, and the lives of “the poor” would be better if the rich weren’t quite so rich.

              Goofy boollsheet, but that was their belief.

              Now, of course to those living in mansions (I’ve spoken with at least 2) they didn’t feel *they* were the rich as they’d come by their money honestly.

            • “Systemic processes tend to reward people for making decisions that turn out to be right—creating great resentment among the anointed, who feel themselves entitled to rewards for being articulate, politically active, and morally fervent.”

              ― Thomas Sowell

        • The Soviets allowed the collective farmers to have small plots the individuals could raise anything they wanted on starting IIRC in the 50s. Estimates I saw in various places is that those plots, only 2% of the land under cultivation, produced 25% of the fruit and vegetable supply.

    • Actually, hippie communes (and other sorts of,communal movements) work quite well, WHEN FOUNDED BY PEOPLE ACTUALLY WILLING AND ABLE TO WORK. It’s when they are founded by nitwits and philosophers (no, I don’t repeat myself, the two intersect a bunch, though) who expect to live the easy life a la Rouseau that they are consumate disasters.

      America is full of examples, most of them schismatic Christian sects. The Onida Colony. The Amana Colony. Hell, the Mormons, to a degree. Always provided

      1) Everyone involved is a volunteer. This is why they frequently stall in later generation.

      2) Enough of the people involved have the skills necessary to succeed, and the rest are willing to either learn or do gruntwork.

      3) There is a larger society near enough to siphon off the dissillusioned, provide new Believers, and provide an outlet for surplus (when there is any) and a source for supplies (to be paid for by the surplus, if any). Said larger society should probably also be FAR enough that it isn’t inclined to meddle.

      Not that I am a great fan of communalism. But the detailed truth is more interesting than the broad generalisation. It is also, I believe, more devastating to the Socialist idiots, because somehow they always seem to think it will be easy, and it aint.

      • If we broaden it out far enough to include groups that aren’t built around “being Communists,” then there’s a long and honorable tradition of them not just working, but producing so much extra that they are boon to have as neighbors, being able to take in those who can’t be cared for and give them an honorable death worthy of their inherent human dignity.

        Monasteries and nunneries.

        Can’t see a Communist commune getting folks to sign up with all the discipline required listed out at the start….

        • *laughs* Oh you did it now. The Leftists can’t abide the idea that the religious folks do the whole communal living thing better than Communists ever could, especially as to them, monasteries and nunneries equal prisons. Never mind that, as far as I am aware, these days you can’t be part of one unless you enter voluntarily.

          • Even in the old days you could be kept at one as a genteel sort of jail instead of going to jail (not a member, a guest) and some people took them as what they thought was the least-bad option, but– well, just like the military, someone who doesn’t want to be there is trouble so they don’t WANT involuntary members.

            Very popular in songs and stories, though; gives you a nice, dramatic back-story (romantic love calls while I am sworn to God!) that doesn’t make your main character a faithless jerk (as in the case of ‘married to someone else’ or ‘joined on their own’.)

          • Birthday girl

            And volunteering isn’t enough to get you in to those … there are trial periods, etc. before they let you stay …

            • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

              Yep, they didn’t want people to take Holy Vows who really didn’t know what they were committing themselves to.

          • Monasteries and Convents only work because the Pope subsidizes them. Also, participants are subjected to intense brain washing. And they rely on rainbow unicorn dust to make their crops grow.

            No way it could be hard work and relevant knowledge. That’s just a scrim for the suckers.

          • Yeah, because when it comes down to it, Leftists are mostly concerend about Sex. The very idea of Monasteries and Nunneries makes them react like the Donald Sutherland picture above. Which is also why they try so hard to destroy them through the mechanism of popular culture, giving us neverending stories about pedophile priests, and lots of porn pictures of Lusty Latex Nuns.

            (I mean, seriously, why try to make an erotic icon out of someone who traditionally eschews sex except as some way to damage their image?)

            • Patrick Chester

              (I mean, seriously, why try to make an erotic icon out of someone who traditionally eschews sex except as some way to damage their image?)

              Maybe there’s also a bit of the forbidden fruit aspect to it? Something they can’t have so they want it more? (Which also might explain the attempts to damage them, since progs tend to get really ticked when they don’t get their way.

            • Not only traditionally eschews it, but does to this day. Do you know what clue put them on the track of HPV? The realization that nuns had very low cervical cancer rates.

        • Or the Shakers, who did wonderful and productive — and profitable work, but when they could no longer take in and shelter orphans, or attract volunteers willing to abstain from sex – diminished down to a bare handful. Of all the idealistic quasi-religious communes established in America in the 19th century, only the Oneida Colony had anything like the transitory success of the Shakers, and only the Mormons have lasted and thrived into the 21st. Why the Mormons have been self-sustaining and durable beyond all initial expectations is a matter for serious discussion by students of this kind of thing.

          • The Oneida Colony lasted at least in some form well into the twentieth century.

            • Most of that form was as a silverware company.

              Anyway, the Oneida free love colony brought us Presidential assassin Charles Guiteau. Because if you can’t even get any free love in a free love colony, you might get a tad bit miffed.

              • I was actually thinking of the Oneida Trap Company, but yes, the main form that they continued to exist in was a company form. And eventually even that died out.

          • William O. B'Livion

            The mormons were *horribly* oppressed, repressed and suppressed, forced to move several times and eventually wound up essentially owning a territory that no one else wanted, where they were the overwhelming majority. This allowed them to remain a bit more insular.

        • Only vaguely related, but I ran across this some weeks back.

          But made me think.

          http://portablefarms.com/

      • All of this sounds about right. I have read that in Israel kibbutzim survive only because of a constant influx of new volunteers to replace the disillusioned, with a hardcore everlasting leadership of true believers sticking around to manage things. The constant inflow/outflow of people doesn’t seem to make a dent in the true believers belief.

    • What they lose per unit they’ll make up in volume.

      • Just had to explain that fallacy to a salesman last week. It doesn’t matter how many we sell if we lose money selling it then we’ll never break even. In fact we’ll go bust faster if it’s a success”

        • Let’s be reasonable. There are times when you lose money on each unit but if you increase volume, you can start to make money.

          however, it’s strictly predicated on the existence of high fixed costs that can be spread over more items.

          • That scenario is based on the notion that, by increasing volume, one would begin to make money on each sale, while if you still lose money on each sale, you just lose money faster.

            Not saying that you don’t have a point, just that a lot of people don’t realize that it MUST, at some point, become a positive net profit on each sale, not remain a negative one.

            • I find that most people and all liberals couldn’t tell you the difference between fixed and variable costs to save their life. That’s why we hear all kinds of bleating about “drugs that only cost 50 cents a pill being priced at $50 a pill.”

          • Yes indeed. But you have to understand your cost structure to do this correctly. If you lowball on something where the fixed costs are low compared to the per unit costs then it doesn’t add up.

    • Well, of course, communist communes do work, and do so every day. We call them “families”.

      They don’t scale well however.

      (In my case, n≥2 seems problematic.)

      • Pretty much every family I’m familiar with are more dictatorships or oligarchies.

        • When we were children, the Oyster Clan was largely run as a benevolent dictatorship by my parents. Now that we’re all ostensibly adults, there is still quite a bit of coordination and collaboration, but now they’re done on an ad hoc basis, and often boil down to a voluntary communalism. The key, though, is that we are all consenting adults, with no force and minimal social pressure (you can’t totally eliminate it) involved.

          • Professor Badness

            My Father would point out that the “benevolent” part of his dictatorship was often dependent on our behavior as subjects.
            I found it worked well on my rebellious and overly clever siblings.

    • How else will they get the power to force the world to act the way it “should”.

  3. Everybody points to TR as a Trust Buster. He busted fewer trusts than Taft. And the only thing the average American remembers about Taft is that he had a big bathtub in the White House.

    • And the trust busters ushered in the mega-corporation. Trusts were cooperative ventures, now everyone works for the man.

    • He was also the last President to do serious work after his administration. He was one of the better SCOTUS Justices on record.

      Not that it’s a high bar.

      Sorry.

      • As a man I highly respect him, as a politician I strongly disagree with him.
        But I believe he would be appalled with the current crop of Progressives that inherited his political mantle. I think he was much more competent than the ones we have now, and I am glad we don’t have him as an opponent today. But sometimes I wonder if he were around today if he would still be a progressive or if he would have looked at the fallacies and failures of his policies and had the integrity and intelligence to change his political stance.

  4. Christopher M. Chupik

    We’ve got fools everywhere. Russell Brand, whom you might remember was the guy who was briefly married to Katy Perry, is now calling for socialism. He wants to create a socialist state based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and . . . Che Gueverra. Oh, and “communism simply means sharing”, according to our new philosopher messiah. Tell that to the Kulaks. Me, I think he’s starting to look a bit like Manson these days.

    BTW, if you point out that Brand is himself rich, he gets very, VERY upset.

    • Me, I think he’s starting to look a bit like Manson these days.

      Oh! The scuzzy guy!

      He looked like Manson from the start– the really old pictures are all I’m familiar with, and the similarity creeped me out.

      • Christopher M. Chupik

        I almost hate to say this, but I think I understand why Katy ditched him.

        • The ONLY time I have ever had anything other than disgust for him was when he decked a sleezy photographer trying to upskirt Katy Perry in (I think) LAX

      • Ugh. I can’t stand to look at pictures of him – to me he looks like someone who smells; of BO, cigarette smoke and cheap liquor.

    • Eamon J. Cole

      Points to two of the critical (truly) changes we need to be pushing for in our cultures and societies (I’m not actually sure how much of this matches up for Canada, my Canadian experiences are a decade+ old):

      1. Marxist catechisms as a mechanism of expiation for rich guilt.

      2. Intellectualism’s assumed ties to Marxist philosophy (Brand fancies himself a bit of an intellectual), and the elite’s assumed ties to intellectual thought.

    • Teachings of Jesus Christ? Been tried.

      I wrote this years ago, but it still rings true.

      We have at least one clear description of the failure of Communism under optimal conditions. I refer, of course, to the Book of Acts, 4:32 – 5:11, Ananias and Sephira. NewLiving translation.

      1. There is no doubt that they are practicing the economic system of communism:”All the believers were of one heart and mind, and they felt that what they owned was not their own; they shared everything they had…There was no poverty among them, because people who owned land or houses sold them, and brought the money to the apostles to give to others in need.” From each according to his means, to each according to his need — Marx would have been proud to call them brother.

      2. They had as close to an incorruptible body of rulers as possible, who were proving their uprightness with miracles every day.

      3. And they had pretty close to the ultimate Auditor; when Ananais and Sephira try to cheat the system, Peter knows about it instantly, and the punishment is swift and sure: the cheaters are struck dead on the spot.

      And yet there were still cheaters, the apostles couldn’t hold it together for very long, and none of the other churches outside Jerusalem seem to have even tried it. If the 12 Apostles backed up by God couldn’t make communism work, how in the h*ll would any lesser mortals have a shot??

      • At that point, all the believers were liquidating their belongings and land because they thought the whole prophecy of “Jerusalem will fall and your will have to flee without stopping for anything – better hope it’s not the Sabbath or at night, when the gates are closed” might happen any day.

        Since the prophecy didn’t actually happen until AD 70, this was a generation premature; but it worked out fine in AD 70 for all the folks who made it to Pella.

        There’s no evidence that the believers in other cities tried it, but they didn’t have any prophecies telling ’em not to bother picking up anything in the house.

      • At that point, all the believers were liquidating their belongings and land because they thought the whole prophecy of “Jerusalem will fall and your will have to flee without stopping for anything – better hope it’s not the Sabbath or at night, when the gates are closed” might happen any day.

        Since the prophecy didn’t actually happen until AD 70, this was a generation premature; but it worked out fine in AD 70 for all the folks who made it to Pella.

        There’s no evidence that the believers in other cities tried it, but they didn’t have any prophecies
        about _their_ cities, telling ’em not to bother picking up anything in the house.

        • ” If the 12 Apostles backed up by God couldn’t make communism work, how in the h*ll would any lesser mortals have a shot??”

          The key is in that last sentence. I’m less interested in their motives for trying Communism than the outcome, which is that NO ONE has ever been able to make it work more than briefly, for certain values of “work”.

        • I just found ALL your comments, including the ones I’m sure were accepted stuck in spam. No idea why. No, I haven’t banned you — I haven’t banned anyone the last few days. this is BEWILDERING.

  5. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

    Some of this is a human belief in a Big Bad out there that’s the true enemy.

    We can imagine that if we “took down” the Big Bad, his followers would “give up” and surrender to us.

    On the other hand, the Left/Liberals have this idea that the “people” should support their ideas because the Left/Liberals “have the best interests of the people in mind”.

    Since the “people” don’t seem to realize this “fact”, the Left/Liberals have to find some reason for the “people” not supporting them (besides the people being stupid).

    So the Left/Liberals have to find somebody to blame for this lack of support.

    Pat Robertson (and when he was alive, Jerry Falwell) is one of the “Big Bads” that is fooling the “people”.

    Of course, Rush Limbaugh is another of the “Big Bads”.

    Thus the Kochs are “Johnny-come-lately” as “Big Bads”.

    So while belief in “Big Bads” isn’t limited to the Left/Liberals, IMO for them it is a matter that their mythology insists that the “People” will support them.

    So they, more than others, need “Big Bads” to explain why the people don’t support them.

    For all their talk about them being in the majority or having majority support, IMO deep down they know that plenty of people don’t support them.

    That (as I said above) is the source of their belief in the “Big Bads”.

    Otherwise, they’d have to admit that the “people” don’t support them.

  6. But then I sort of expect this from a cult, which is what they are. You can’t be argued out of a position you weren’t argued but instead brainwashed and “felt” (“feeled”) into.

    Sufficiently true that it doesn’t really need correcting, but triggered my line of thought on to how you can sometimes argue someone out of a feeled position by paying attention to secondary effects, while the argument itself might persuade the silent, rational watchers. 😀

    Undermine the claims about Designated Hate Target.
    Point out that Designated Hate Target didn’t do what they claim.
    Point out double standards– money in politics is bad, but unions need to be able to force people to give them money to spend on politics, how’s that work?
    Point out when they change the subject, keep hammering on the thing they were talking about in the first place, ESPECIALLY if they made a big deal about it.

    • Interestingly enough, I was chatting with TL, Kate and Jordan about the idea that SJWs are basically nothing but a pseudo-religious cult, given how they behave and operate. They resemble the Maoist Cult of Personality, but instead of a person, they focus on very obscure, ever-shifting and ill defined concepts of dubious virtues. I think John C. Wright would be better equipped in writing something about this than I am though, as he is far, far more erudite than I am.

  7. Christopher M. Chupik

    MOON FERRET TRUTH NOW!

    • Christopher M. Chupik

      Facts that prove the Moon Ferret Conspiracy:

      FACT: No scientist has ever acknowledged the existence of moon ferrets, proving they have infiltrated the scientific community.

      FACT: No expeditions into Hollow Earth have been conducted, because if they did, they would reveal the secret moon ferret burrows honeycombing the Earth.

      FACT: There was an unexplained bulge on Bush’s back during the 2004 presidential debates, proving that he was a meat-puppet under the control of a moon ferret.

      • Heard a late-night radio show talking about the secret tunnels through the crust and the mantle. Definitely moon ferrets there.

  8. Eamon J. Cole

    If my Asia is a cherry pancake what’s Eurasia?

  9. “the sarcasm of nuclear power”

    Are you sure you’ve never been a nuke? Because that is scarily accurate.

  10. Dipped into the FB kerfuffle a couple of times today. Biggest regret is that since gum surgery the dentist has forbidden me from eating popcorn. Somehow a bowl of pudding just isn’t the same.
    As for our fearless leader, does it strike anyone else that he would appear to be the epitome of black privilege? Just saying, if Clinton was teflon, Obama has to be kevlar.

  11. But…but…but…he’s a notary! I mean, that means something!

    Granted, using a “title” that could also be used by the pimply face minimum wage drone working at The UPS Store while living in his mother’s basement just means that the guy is a tool. Of course, saying that Ayn Rand was a Russian agent did a pretty good job of that too.

  12. Sarah is using Snow Flake Seals. My day, it is made.

  13. I had missed his blog post, but found it with a quick duckduckgo search of “ayn rand communist agent”.

    I have heard some truly insane accusations leveled at AR’s shade, but I do believe that one takes the cake.

  14. Ayn Rand, secret soviet agent: It’s so insane no one would ever suspect. Because it’s insane. Muahahaha! 😛

    • If only more of our enemies could send us more agents like those, as opposed to Klaus Fuchs and the like. 😛

    • More secret agents that no one would ever suspect: Albert Einstein, secret Nazi weapon’s mole. William Tecumseh Sherman: Secret Confederate false flag plant to make the Union look bad. 😛 😛

  15. Wheeeee….. you do have fun, doncha!

  16. “Why didn’t you guys warn me that we’re in full saturnalia, and fools are running around with underwear on head pretending to be kings? Sheesh, you’d think you would.”

    For the same reason fish don’t notice water.

  17. Pingback: News of the Week (December 7th, 2014) | The Political Hat

  18. Why didn’t you guys warn me that we’re in full saturnalia, and fools are running around with underwear on head pretending to be kings? Sheesh, you’d think you would.

    Because that’s just like every other day.

    • Yep, sun comes up, trolls crawl out of their hidey holes. We all get to play whack-a-troll. Just another fine day at the asylum.
      It’s when they’re quiet that you have to worry about what they’re up to.

  19. OK, so maybe I haven’t read up on the inner workings of the average brothel…but wouldn’t whores not dressed be considered, um, “shovel-ready jobs”? Do Spanish Sailors really only pay for the unwrapping part? So many questions…

    • Dear dear lady, as you must be aware a bit of decorative wrap always brightens even the most shopworn gift. Does sort of take the term re-gifting to a whole other level though.
      And given our fair host’s heritage I strongly suspect that “Spanish Sailors” are not a term of endearment by any means.
      Still think that Dan and the boys should dress like Spanish pirates and surprise Sarah some All Hallow’s Eve just to see what reaction they get.

    • um… you pay more to DRESS the whores?

    • Hiding the goods under wraps makes the item look more alluring, and interesting, than just presenting it nude, and so the sailors may be willing to pay more than they might if all of them could see what the others got? I mean, if the package insides can only seen privately by each customer, they might not be willing to tell the others what they managed to snatch was actually not quite as good as it looked wrapped, especially if there happened to be something of a contest for some particular package, but they might rather boast how they got the best deal, and pay the prize for it without complaints.

      Okay, now does that sound plausible at all…

      • Now that I’ve stopped spluttering at “managed to snatch”, let’s see:

        Actually, the fact is that most women (and men, too, probably, but I’m not a particular admirer of the male form) are generally more alluring while wearing just a little bit of well-chosen clothing than completely nude. Part of this is the mystery of not being able to see the whole package at once. As for not being as good as advertised, as it were – any man with any experience is going to know that the packaging can hide a lot, and take that into account.

        Speaking of “not quite as good as it looked wrapped”, Sarah, when is Dan going to get Ninth Euclid finished and published (No, you goobers, I’m not talking about the book being not as good, I’m referring to a particular incident in it)?

  20. “he linked his own blog in which he explains Ayn Rand was a soviet agent bringing libertarian fascism/communism to the US.”

    I have to ask, is courting she who talks to plants?

    • Should be, “is he courting she who talks to plants?”

    • Not that I know? We should introduce them!

      • Do you really want to contemplate the possibility that they might breed?

      • No. Those two reproducing???? For the love of God, no!!!?!!!

        • One could hope for a rebellious offspring. It is, after all, something of a tradition that the kids often want to become the opposite of what the parents are, especially when the parents happen to be something extreme in way which have, maybe, felt embarrassing to the child when he was a child (we would probably not have to worry that there would be children instead of a child).

          Of course there is then the problem that in those cases the grandchildren sometimes seem to become much like the grandparents when they rebel against their parents. 🙂

          • That’s a tradition because it’s noticeable. Conformity is more prevalent but less obvious. Something like 80% of all children vote like their parents, for instance.

            • Well, as said, ‘hope’. 🙂 Or try to get to the offspring and corrupt him… 😀

              • Come to think of it, isn’t that what people like Sarah and company are also doing? Corrupting the young…

                Provided the young get exposed early enough it should work too, pretty often anyway – give them stories they love to read, and the ideas may get lodged in, and even when the surroundings may make them adopt a different way of thinking they will probably be a lot easier to, er, convert, once they are older and have gotten more experience of the real world on their own, without the benefit of parental protection… hm, some equivalent of an Usaian Katniss in the Seacities, or maybe ‘Teen Monster Hunters’ series… 😀

                Guys?

          • The more extreme/demanding the parents’ lifestyle is for the kids, the more likely they are to rebel for at least part of the time– and if the rebellion makes a lot more sense than what they’re rebelling against, they’ll leave.

            My theory goes that this is why the Left spends so much time making fun of everybody they disagree with; they can’t make their own stuff look more sensible, so they have to make everything else look REALLY crazy.

            • Yes. And as to fiction, we could use more unreasonable leftie parents in movies and television, and written fiction, doing this to their kids. There are plenty of preachers and businessmen and other types of strict conservative fathers (usually, and the mother is a doormat who mostly just does some occasional pleading) driving their sensitive kids away or into alternative lifestyles in all kinds of stories already, offhand the only example of the opposite I can think of is that 80’s television series which really started Michael J. Fox’s career (I think I have seen only a couple of episodes, and as far as I remember those parents weren’t exactly depicted as stupid, but anyway). Since movies and television are still hard to get to, how about more examples in written fiction…

              Guys? 🙂

  21. Sarah wrote:
    And that is why we must stand up and say “no more.”

    NO MAS!!

  22. First thing I did was go look up the post on your timeline (I don’t watch my wall that much any more). Holy cow! 700 comments????

  23. A FB Friend of mine posted an info-graphic with the usual “OMG Koch spending!!!11”. I looked at it, and was profoundly disappointed. It was a few orders of magnitudes short the landslide of cash I was led to believe they spent.

  24. 🙂

  25. The whole point of a book promotion, like a doomsday machine, is lost if you keep it a secret!

    Why didn’t you tell the world, eh?

  26. From Jonah Goldberg’s latest “news” letter, which should be on NRO soon can be found here.
    Taking offense in and of itself has no moral weight to it whatsoever. It depends why you are taking offense. And if you can’t even articulate why you’re offended, don’t bother telling me you’re offended. Because absent a good reason to be offended, I really don’t care.

    • At this point, even if you have a good reason to be offended, I’m not sure I’d bother to care.

      And I used to be one of those people who didn’t want to offend. Now that I realize it’s impossible to not offend some of these turdnuggets, I don’t even bother trying any longer.

      • Bah, don’t sell yourself short. You’re not rude, just not easily manipulated in the manner they’ve adopted.

        Although that is why public discourse is so much more nasty, even in situations where they’re not deliberately being nasty because it’s “authentic.” Valid claims get treated with suspicion just like the far, far, FAR more common false claims.

    • Why is the solution to “rape culture” “teach boys to not rape” and not “teach girls to $%&£ing report rape?”

      • Victim Blamer!!!!!!

        • Y’know, with all the talk of “believe victims no matter what the facts are”, they just made a TV movie out of The Red Tent, a nasty spin on the Biblical story of the rap of Dinah.

          In the Biblical version, a young woman is kidnapped and raped, and the patriarchal society her family is living in assumes all will be made well if a marriage offer is made. Her brothers who love her stand up for her—they’re excessive in their zeal to rescue her (maybe; the text is deliberately ambiguous), but it gets the job done. She is welcomed back to her family, and one of her brothers even adopts her child as his own. (The child is listed as Shimon’s son “Shaul son of the Canaanitess”.)

          Authoress Anita Diamant and Lifetime prefer to paint her rapist as the good guy, and the family which does not abandon their “dishonored” sister (as many in that era would have done) as the patriarchal bad guys. This is supposed to be “feminist” somehow; but all I can see is what the SJWs call “rape denial” and “rape apology”.

          • Oh, THANK you. I HATED THAT STORY with every fiber of my being. I give you that I haven’t studied much Torah (though I am in a study group, and I have at least two annotated editions, I don’t read Hebrew) so I admitted the possibility that maybe, perhaps it was more in depth scholarship than I had. Everyone talked about how great it was. Yet it felt… “wrong” (slimy, more like. If that makes sense. I recall the book with a physical sensation of the sort of slime you can’t wash off your hands.)

            • Keep in mind that the Torah is not a PR document, intended to present the best face of Israel’s People to their descendants.

              Warts & All is the Old Testament goal.

              • Which is why, last time this book came up in conversation on this blog (or was it MGC?), there was a sub-thread discussing whether Shimon & Levi, “brothers of Dinah”, were correct in wiping out the town or whether their father Jacob’s criticism was correct. The text vary carefully does not spoon-feed you the “correct” answer.

                • It’s almost as if the purpose is to teach people to think tings through and reason out what behaviour is correct in the eyes of G-D, to learn from examples of what is pleasing to their Creator.

                  But that’s just crazy talk!

                • It was here (possibly on MGC also, I seem to recall having that discussion twice, but I’m positive we had it here).

              • I’d say it is a PWR document, but one aimed at a different world. Something in a similar to the “America: We will kill you in your sleep on Christmas” meme about the Battle of Trenton.

            • Most of the “celebrated” progressive Bible novels are basically taking a contrary view of the story. Amusingly, this usually involves throwing everything behind one progressive principle while saying nasty things about everything else.

              In this case, multicultural sex is good, so obviously it can’t be a case of rape. In a similar novel, David was portrayed as totally evil and Michal as totally good and feminist and eating goddess raisin cake, but the writer unconsciously managed it by portraying David as President Clinton. (The writer actually said the novel was about how she hated Booosh, but the Muse said otherwise.)

              Then there’s that one heroic historical fantasy author who decided to make God the bad guy and Moses into an enabler/pacifier, and was supposed to be so brave and original; but of course that writer didn’t write anything nasty about Allah and Mohammed.

          • *thinks hard*

            Maybe just enough historical knowledge to have heard that it was still classed as rape if she was willing and her family didn’t approve, and then the “screw with the Christians and Jews” tendency took over? Kind of like why the new re-creation of Santa has a gray beard, instead of a white one, when they were working from bones?
            (That’s the reason I heard that an accepted marriage proposal would forgive rape, anyways.)

            • The Biblical text mentions the rapist and seducer in distinct places (Deut 22:28–29 vs Exod 22:15–16), so “still classed as rape if she was willing and her family didn’t approve” is quite a stretch.

              And it’s not so much that “an accepted marriage proposal would forgive rape” as that the girl & her family could, at their discretion, impose upon the rapist or seducer that he support her and provide for her as for a wife—a safety net for periods when non-virgin women might find it difficult to find husbands.

              (The Torah rarely explicitly says society should hold or shun a particular attitude, but instead has rules that protect vulnerable people even when society is wrong-headed.)

          • Thought you might like this article:

            http://www.catholicvote.org/the-red-tent-on-lifetime-bible-or-bunk/

            Says roughly the same thing you did, with more words, and a ton of examples.

            Think they summed it up nicely:
            Frankly, with a few exceptions (like History Channel’s “The Bible,” which was made by believers who respected the material and its evangelical purpose), modern Biblical interpretations usually leap beyond the story into areas and themes that sometimes directly contradict the intent and essential meaning of the original.

            Obviously that’s part and parcel of artistic freedom, but it can also be a thumb-in-the-eye sort of post-adolescent rebellion, a desire to take tradition and remold it into one’s own image, to serve the writer’s own vision and desires.

      • Jeff,

        Once sec. while I bash myself in the head with a brick a few times. I then just might loose enough I.Q. points to understand them and why they do the things they do.

        😉

        • A brick isn’t going the be enough. You’ll need a hole saw and either a stick blender or a paddle mixer.

          I’m trying to come up with a liberal position that cannot be demolished in 100 words or fewer. I’m not having much luck.

          • I find the trick is to employ logic and reason, something I learned from early exposure to Lewis Carroll.

            It also helps to invert the signs.

            The Left’s playbook is absurdly simple, primarily relying on distraction, red herring and brute force.

      • Screw that, why isn’t it “and teach girls how to stop anybody who tries to rape them”?
        Teaching them how to properly report rape, for the greatest effectiveness in getting the blankers, is a sad necessity for when/if the gun and maiming defenses fail.

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        Because the people who say that are speaking falsehood.

        1. Their model of criminal management for real crimes is to pretend that the same lecturing that didn’t work prior to the crime will somehow work after the crime and conviction.

        2. There are a number of men, neither feminist nor left, who learned the lesson of not raping better than any feminist curriculum could teach. Conservative Christian women also.

        3. Other aspects of feminist ideology undermine the intellectual foundations of philosophy opposed to rape. A sound bite that looks like it is advocating for a policy works to prevent deeper discussion, which might highlight the degree to which feminists are not really willing to oppose rape.

        4. Specifically picking on men is sexism.

    • And now, in the UK, they are taking offense at the double entendres told about an entirely fictional lady – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/comedy/11276914/Im-sorry-but-why-the-fuss-over-fictional-Samantha.html

  27. I don’t recall where i saw this, but apparently the riots, die-ins and other tantrums about Ferguson/Gantry/Diaper-rash have already blocked more traffic than Christy’s Bridge-gate was claimed to and cost MILLIONS of dollars in police overtime. (So, one bright side is our LEO families will have merrier Christmases.)

    I wonder whether the effect on GDP of these protests exceeds the damage done by the last government shutdown?

  28. Patrick Chester

    I’ve noted before that the progs seem to need an army of Emmanuel Goldsteins to screech at.

    Sarah Palin, the Koch Brothers, GW Bush, etc.

  29. Christopher M. Chupik

    In other words, a vast right-wing conspiracy.

    Can I join? It sounds like you could make a lot of money working for them.

  30. “… why the liberals always need a bad guy in their narrative of the world.” – somewhat parallel, with a nice broadening of viewpoint, to John Wright’s “liberalism = politicized envy” argument of yesterday. You guys should get together and write a political science book for independents and home-schoolers.