Sin Eaters

A friend got caught in a discussion on Facebook where he was told that Lenin and Marx were center-right.

After he was done face palming, he asked what that even meant.  He was told that any military action or violence is right wing.

Now, we’ve long, here, and in many other places, said that left and right make no sense as universal designations, as they have have completely different meanings in say Europe and America.  Hell, they have different meanings in America from the seventies to now.

The old GOP operated on the idea that a planned economy was always better because this was scientifically proven (okay, mostly Russian propaganda made them think that) they were just trying to keep some liberties for individuals under it.  The other side, OTOH wanted “communism with a human face.”  (BTW it is that some GOP representatives remain from this time — hello Senator McCain– that makes the GOP appear schizophrenic.

After the fall of the Soviet Union and a glimpse at the sewer of corruption and lies under their official figures, and the sheer desperate poverty under that, the US shifted to the right being “less government always” and the left… well, they still want communism with a human face as their long term goal.  Because this time it will work.

And in Europe the right means, roughly, “Land, G-d and king” even when there is no king and they’re mostly post-Christian.  The left… Oh, yes, the buggers want communism and aren’t too picky on the human face, though they’ll say what they have to say to get the power.  They’re nothing if not consistent.

But at some point you have to go with what people call themselves.  (Curiously both SJWs and alt-right after calling themselves those names started whining they were unflattering because of the ideas that attached to them.  Gee. Sorry, we’ll still go with what you called yourselves.  Any new name you chose would quickly be as tainted.  We’re just saving you time.)

Communists, socialists and Jacobins and Sans Culottes called themselves left, and all of them throughout history have committed more violence than any other historical regimes combined.  In fact the violence committed by left wing regimes could bathe the whole world in blood twice over.

It is not a surprise when you consider what all those movements had in common was making the sin of envy into their cardinal virtue.  If you believe other people are keeping from you everything you could possibly want, you’ll do anything to get them out of your way.

But the new and improved definition of “left” and “right” didn’t surprise me either, mostly because I read my kids school books, in which hard core communist regimes like Russia and China are called “right wing” and in which any sympathy for the army makes you an evil despot in waiting, and on and on.

Part of this is the ethos of the education establishment.  Most teachers are incredibly maleducated and taught by hippy-left professors.  So instead of a clear view of history, they have this vague impression that anything resembling organizatioon, work, money or fighting is icky.  And being icky it must be right wing.

The other part of it is that for decades now (mostly due to Soviet propaganda and leftist dominance of the medica) the left has succeed  in making the right their sin eaters.  I.e. if communists are violent in Mexico and the government cracks down, it will be reported as innocent “liberals” being put down by the repressive right wing.  The same could be said of the Soviet Union rampaging through Africa.  Anyone who attempted to stop them were “evil right wing fascists.”

What it boils down to, has already been seen in this country.  Their violence is JUST free speech, and any attempt to stop them attacking us (physically) even to the point of telling them “No, stop.” is unbearable violence.

Well, they got away with that crap because they controlled everything.  Now their really fascist supposed antifa is exposed in the full light of day by blogs and citizens with cell phones.

The poor indoctrinated sheep to whom they taught all violence is right wing aren’t much help either.  what they internalized as “perfect left wing” is a sort of vegetarian pastoral society who fights off enemies by saying “we’re really peaceful.”  They’re best exemplified by the “anarchist” leader who had been bragging in advance of the DNC in Denver in 2008 on how they were going to roll over those hick cops (if you’re from the Denver Area you know our cops are often …. a little too enthusiastic.)  Surrounded by a circle of police on horseback, tightening the circle, this brave activist fell to the ground screaming he needed his inhaler.  …. yeah.

To the left: stop moving the semantic goal posts at relativistic speed.  We are not your goats.  We won’t be driven into the desert.  Your twisted envy-powered beliefs have been responsible for the needless death of millions.

Pointing at us, instead, won’t wash the blood off.  Nothing will.  It would turn the ocean incarnadine.

Own it.  No matter how much you call yourself “blue” we can still see the red all over you.  It’s a blood guilt you can’t pass off.  And a warning to anyone who thinks your crazy ideas might be worth another try.


347 thoughts on “Sin Eaters

  1. One of the defining characteristics of the Left is their incapacity to accept responsibility. I could cite examples galore from Hillary Clinton alone, but that seems gratuitous.

      1. Responsibility. If they were merely denying or obstructing reality, I’d be be tempted to lend at least some support. Have a few arguments with that reality thing, myself, I do. Buggy implementation, it is.

    1. As I’ve heard it said, being Left means never having to say you’re sorry. It’s the main attraction that remains to the movement.

      1. “It’s just this war and that lying son of a bitch Johnson!” as justification to abuse a woman for example.

    2. They CAN’T accept responsibility. They have, consistently, been the cheering section for the most blood soaked monsters in history. They make a lot of noise about the bloody murdering done by the Right, but the numbers just don’t add up. The Spanish Inquisition killed, MAYBE, 5000 people. Horrible, yes, but hardly in the same league with Stalin and Mao. The never to be sufficiently despised Austrian Paperhanger was one of theirs, no matter how much they protest. The highest estimation of murders that I have ever seen attributed to the Franco regime is 400,000, and that is very probably wildly exaggerated. Pinochet is accused of killing less than 5000. Compare those numbers to the barbarism of various Communist regimes;

      Cambodian ‘Killing Fields’; between 1.2 and 3.4 million

      Cuba; 16,000, or three times the highest that Pinochet is accused of, in a very small field

      Maoist China; between 40 and 70 million

      Stalin: between 20 and 40 million

      That doesn’t include the ‘revolutionary’ regimes in Africa, or the Islamic Jihadists, both of which have been fashionable with the idiots of the left.

      To accept that they have cheered the murders for so many millions would break their tiny minds. These are not, for the most part serious people given to much actual thought. If they were, they couldn’t support so much unmitigated hogwash (battery powered cars? Really? Where the pluperfect hell is the juice going to come from? And don’t tell me windmills; it hurts when I laugh that hard.).

        1. Yeah, one of the more annoying things about the movie if you don’t take the utter ironic use of John Lennon’s “Imagine” over the end credits.
          People don’t get bombed, then suddenly decide to embrace a Marxist death cult devoted to starting from zero.

          1. The average person in the US doesn’t even *know* about the defunding of vietnamization. It . Is. Not. Taught. Even hinting it may have happened is sacrilege amongst the ‘intelligent’ people.

            1. Besides, it was all [Demon*]’s fault because reasons!

              *Insert Nixon, Kissinger, Reagan or other enemy of the (Progressive) state. Logic nor facts irrelevant.

      1. I’m not sure that the Spanish Inquisition can reasonably be counted– not because it’s Catholic, but because for heaven’s sake the Spanish king declared his gov’t more fit to judging theological orthodoxy than the Church, and the followed rules of evidence that were outdated even for that time and for very obvious non-religious reasons. IE, an excuse.

        If it can be shoved into a left/right framework at all, it looks a lot more like the modern left’s habit of using anything they can find as a hammer for the nails they want pounded.

        1. I guess my point is that when some leftie twit asks me “What about the Spanish Inquisition” (as if I were Spanish or Catholic) my answer is that they killed fewer people than Castro..

        2. The Inquisition is getting revisited in some interesting ways by modern historians with access to Vatican archives. The estimated number of victims who died as a result of the Inquisition has actually been going down – with some folks postulating the number of victims killed by the Church at only 5,000 (or less). The Spanish Inquisition, interestingly enough, may have been more humane than the non-Inquisition Courts around it as there are records of people committing blasphemy in secular courts so they could have their case would fall under the Inquisition’s jurisdiction. This makes sense when the records seem to indicate that the vast majority of all Inquisition trials did not involve torture at all. When it comes right down to it, there is even now a question as to whether much of the torture and executions attributed to the Church during the various inquisitions actually occurred.


          1. A good pop-history source is to search for the article titled “The truth about the spanish inquisition”– it was first published in Crisis, and covers a lot of the same ground you mention.

            Saving those links, too.

            It’s strange, from where we are today, to think of things like requiring evidence as a development in court cases– but the formalized “this is evidence, this isn’t” thing actually had to be developed.

            1. There was a very short period (compared to the rest of Europe) when the Spanish Inquisition was involved in the Witch Hunts.

              One of the Inquisitors was claimed to have said “cases of people getting hexed by witches appear to happen only after the Witch Hunt begins”.

              Which is partly why the SI got out of the Witch Hunt business and went back to the older Catholic dogma that “witches causing harm to others is pure superstition”.

              IIRC one older Catholic Theologian said “God would not allow Satan to give power to witches”. 😉

              1. Mary has the details, but supposedly one inquisitor chased a self-confessed witch around the room with a broom yelling at him to escape through a key-hole. (A thing he’d claimed to have done.)

      2. as Franco and Pinochet were Fascist flavors, they too belong to the left. Yes, they hated the communists, as did Benito, but they clung to a heavy order of other “Left” beliefs to drive their agenda’s, and all their deaths are on the hands of the leftoids as well.

          1. it all too often depends on who’s definitions of right and left are used, and most of the time folks tend to default to the far left’s definition of it. Everyone is a haretic to a zealot, even other zealots. Too many zealot leftoids today think Lenin was center right.
            to me, one is too many, but oh well.

            1. One zealot, one leftoid, or one fascist?
              Or is this an “embrace the power of ‘and'” moment?

        1. Eh. As near as I can tell, fascism probably does fall under the sense of “right-wing” in the original meaning of the term, largely because it tends to believe in co-opting the aristocracy and middle class in order to achieve its goals, rather than destroying them.

          1. co-opting that which other flavors would destroy is done by many of the flavors.
            This is where Sarah often talks about the difference in Right and Left definitions in the US vs Most everywhere else. To a non-leftoid American looking at the policies of these govt.s they are not what they think of as Rightwing, unless they’ve been taught by marxists. Ask your typical leftoid what are the rightwing policies of fascism, and they can’t tell you. Most default to the same “rightwing” policy of nazism, racism/anti-semetism, yet their beloved commie run regimes are just as bad if not worse, or expansionism. Funny, the Soviet wanting to run the world is a-okay, Hitler doing so is somehow rightwing, and yet libertarians are rightwing, for not wanting either to do so, nor anyone else.

            1. That’s because the original left-right dichotomy is really inapplicable anywhere besides Europe during the transition from monarchy to non-monarchy.

          2. Everyone considered them left-wing until Stalin decided that its hallmark was supporting him.

    3. Anyone want to lay bets about her new book blaming everything up to and including the phases of the moon and the position of the stars?

  2. … any military action or violence is right wing.

    So, the antifa protesters are right-wing? I guess those twits sporting Che T-shirts must now confess their right-leaning idolatry.

    1. No, you miss the semantic point. “It’s not violence when WE do it!” It’s just energetic speech…

      1. Then I pray that we may never be subjected to the’ energetic speech’ of anyone the like of Che.

      2. It’s self defense against your violently bigoted thoughts. Now stop squirming so I can hit you with this sign.

        1. Ummm…no. “Mom, he hit me back after I hit him first!” won’t win any arguments with me or my cohort. You may get the first hit, but I can guarantee you it will be answered (not you personally, understand, but those you’re channeling in your above post).

        2. I was working line duty for a dance at an anime convention when I encountered a young man carrying a sign on a stick as part of his cos-play. Because it was my job I told him that he would have to take his sign back to his room or his car, for nothing that could be considered a weapon was allowed into the dance.

          He objected, saying it was part of his costume, moreover it was a sign and certainly not a weapon.

          I suggested that he could hand me the sign, and, as I was a child of the 60s, I could demonstrate for him its nature as a weapon.

          Fortunately he understood. To the sound of the surrounding chorus of laughter, he quickly left to put that sign away.

          1. I think that’s why wrapping paper rolls (as opposed to sticks) are so popular with cosplay signs now. You do anything too energetic with them and they’ll fall apart, but you can use them for the designated purpose without them being able to be classified as a weapon.

            1. Yep. We had a great guy at the Con Sunday (missionary for Cthulu – the end of the world is neigh) and he had a wrapping-paper roll wrapped in tree-bark tape holding his sign.

          1. Told that story to an actual Irish lady one time, at a harp conference.
            She didn’t get it.

  3. Seems like, more than political labels, humanity is divided into those who want everyone else to adhere to their own personal preferences, and those who just want to be left along.
    Call them Democratic, Republican or Whig/Tory – they want rules delineating YOUR conduct, not their own. ‘Cause, after all, they can make no misteaks.
    Then there are the malcontents who refuse to toe the line. “Get outta my face!” “Live and let live.” “Get your nose out of my bedroom/lifestyle/checkbook.”
    I know which side I’m on. And, if pushed hard, I’ll fight to protect my isolation.

    1. I am quite solidly on the side of rules preventing others from killing me or mine, just for starters.

      There is a division, but I don’t see how it’s very useful without an additional division that requires judgement– what rights are worth protecting.

      We’ve done the “only rights you have are the ones you protect yourself.” That is most of human history; in contrast, when we protect the rights of people, things tend to get better; find better ways to protect the rights– and balance them out– and it gets better yet, over the long run.

      1. This is one of the great arguments of the ages: What exactly are the minimum of rules necessary to allow a society to function and prosper? That is quickly followed with how to enforce those rules and what are proper consequences for those who have broken them.

        1. Pretty much.

          I fall along the lines the founders gestured at, where you can only minimize the rules if you’re working with a “godly” people– a mostly consistent, caritas based guilt rather than honor group.

          1. Pretty much. Note- the founders didn’t ban SSM, they simply didn’t consider the possibility that a judge would declare it legal. They didn’t make English the official language- they couldn’t imagine a judge saying government had to print ballots in 27 languages. There’s a lot of rules they didn’t make that in hindsight they maybe should have.

            1. “Against stupidity the very gods Themselves contend in vain.”

              Why are we disappointed this nation’s Founders did no better?

              1. I am not disappointed in the Founders. I’m disappointed in their successors. Although “Against stupidity the very gods Themselves contend in vain.” is also applicable.

                And a good place to add, and Posner is still a moron.

                1. Oh, you can trust Zeus… to not be able to his toga on… and to “forget” to transform himself back from $ANIMAL to his form, on his er..descents from Olympus. Beyond that? Trust more in good drains.

                  1. Zues is more trustworthy than Odin, the combat pragmatist that views everything as a form of combat.

                    Remember that the alias that Odin gives to the giant’s daughter when recovering the Mead of Poetry was Bolverk, which directly translates as “Evil Doer.”

            2. IIRC, one of the reasons polygamy wasn’t allowed was that it wasn’t a regularly observed practice or right in any of the societies that the USA was based off

            3. The founders never contemplated that the Supreme Court would exercise a veto power over laws enacted by Congress. If they had, there would have certainly been a corresponding check on such judicial overreach.

              1. The Judiciary Act of 1789 was introduced to Congress by Senator Richard Henry Lee. It ultimately passed with amendments from both the House and Senate and was signed into law by President Washington on September 24, 1789. It set the Supreme Court at 6 justices, one Chief and five associates. It drew 13 judicial districts within the 11 states that had by that date ratified the Constitution, others being added when North Carolina and Rhode Island ratified. It established circuit courts which were to be overseen by justices from the Supreme Court, and district courts under them. The act also created the Office of the Attorney General.

                In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.s. 137 (1803) the John Marshall Court declared unconstitutional Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which allowed the Supreme Court to issue a writs of mandamus because it enlarged the Court’s original jurisdiction. The rest remained. This case is pointed to as the establishment of the Supreme Court’s power to review and overturn legislation based on Constitutionality.

            4. I don’t think they would have. They would have went “Your state; your business.” Likely as not they would have been appalled that anyone would have thought such was the thing to do, but would have also said “This is not the Federal government’s business.”

              What would have saddened them was how the Federal government has slipped the bound of the Constitution. Somewhere Jefferson is saying to Madison “See? I told you,” and Patrick Henry is saying “Shut up, Tom; you wanted it, too.”

            5. And this is why we a) have so many laws and b) “zero tolerance” policies. There’s a level of cultural diversity beyond which a trust based society ceases to exist. We’re there.

        2. Some guys attempted to define that very thing back in 1787, but now people claim their work was “just a piece of paper.”

          1. Now just imagine if the shoulders of giants had been up for such ridicule throughout English history. The Tudors would have about finished off any going notion of English Law on the spot. But, fortunately, the demands of a bunch of self-interested barons who’d been dead for three hundred years still carried a bit of weight.

        3. This usually gets undercut by those who say “there ought to be a law”, and that usually after someone does something incredibly stoopid.

          1. The worst local tyrannies always seem to start with that comment, “there ought to be a law.” Should always be replied to with, “Why?” Followed by careful factual point by point refutation of their reasons.

            1. If they were thinking rationally, they wouldn’t be asking for a law to be made. They’re in “pitchforks & torches” mode, which is the historic weak point of all democratic governments.

          2. I prefer, “Don’t just do something, stand there!”
            Let the stupidities take care of themselves.

  4. Well, they got away with that crap because they controlled everything. Now their really fascist supposed antifa is exposed in the full light of day by blogs and citizens with cell phones.

    And police reports actually being widely available.

    That guy in Portland that was REPORTED as a pro-Trump anti-Muslim hateful racist who killed two guys and wounded a third who intervened when he was “assaulting” two Muslim gals.

    Those reports couldn’t entirely ignore that the supposed victims of attempted murder left the area without talking to the police, though, which was odd.

    When real information came out, turned out he was a pretty generic crazy guy who was screaming pretty much anti-everything stuff, one of the guys (I think the one that survived) opposed him in some form (I think verbal, but gosh– all the searches are only bringing up initial reports) and Crazy Ranting Guy pulled a knife, the late Army guy jumped up to save lives, and the other dead guy just happened to be in the area.

    He was also a known random crazy guy, of whom there is video ranting from a week earlier, and there’s no lack of history of major mental issues.

    AKA, chucking out people who really should be institutionalized got two good guys killed.

    1. Because institutionalizing, it be BAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDDD. I mean, they’re JUST like US.

      1. Well, for certain values of “us.” By which I mean (clearly) the cultural Marxists of the Social Justice movement who are about as delusional as the folks referred to here.

      2. Yeah, but you give the government too much leeway on locking up potentially violent crazy people, and you give them a very big stick to lock up people who merely don’t agree with them, or are political enemies.

        1. Except we’re not discussing locking up potentially violent crazy people, we’re talking about locking up known violent crazy people before they kill someone.

          I know I’ve mentioned before that a family friend in Washington has a brother who is certifiably schizo; about twice a year he chases one or more family members around the house with a knife, usually the big chopping knife from the kitchen.

          Because he has not actually killed anyone yet, they can’t lock him up. If they did manage to lock him up, it would be very difficult to lock him up for longer than the sentence that would be handed to a sane man.

          This is… obscene. All the more for those folks who are not always crazy– they have to live with what happens when they’re not in their right mind, without even being able to set things up while they’re sane so that they won’t be released when they’re…not.

          1. Because he has not actually killed anyone yet, they can’t lock him up.

            Perhaps if they tell the authorities that he has expressed certain inclinations toward voting Republican?

          2. And the family that hasn’t shot him is certifiable under the “danger to themselves” clause. Just sayin’.

            1. Clever, but the facts are that family tends to be the ones killed– and they’re the good people who won’t turn out someone they love to die, even though they are at risk.

              There’s also an element of at least they know that it can happen– unlike the guys on the Portland train.

              1. No, not really clever. Just appalled that people are willing to let one obvious crazy put everyone’s life, not just their own, at risk. They KNOW how this is going to end. Damn.

                1. *sad* But the folks preventing institutionalization aren’t at risk– they’ll LET the crazy people die horribly, and any incidental victims…hey, not like deaths for the theory MATTER, right?

    2. IIRC, the crazy Portland guy also turned out to be a Bernie Bro . . . like the moron a couple of weeks later who attempted to shoot an entire baseball team’s worth of Republican congressmen. Funny how both the Portland stabbing rampage and the Alexandria shooter both got dropped right down the media memory hole when it was learned they were kooky Democrats, isn’t it?

      1. The media held on to the Washington D.C. shooting for a while, using the incident to advocate for the expansion of gun control laws.

        1. meanwhile, the guys actually shot at in the incident are trying to loosen DC’s gun laws.

          1. See! That just proves it. Those evil Republicans will not only put us at risk, they even put themselves at risk to pander to those fearful rural voters desperately clinging to their Bibles and guns.

            O, never mind, such nonsense can hurt the brain… Sigh! Self-defense? Empowering law abiding people to be able take care of themselves? Countering those who are going to use guns legal or illegal? These bleeding hearts have no idea.

            1. Empowering law abiding people to be able take care of themselves?
              WTH are you thinking?! People can’t take care of themselves! That’s why gov’t is the thing we all do together (except some of us are more together than others).

        1. So was the Tucson guy who shot Rep. Giffords — didn’t affect the Democrats’ nor the MSM’s (but I repeat myself) spin.

          1. They tried to blame Palin for that since some election “get out the vote” ad used “crosshairs” to designate Giffords’ district. Though they remain oddly silent about the DailyKos using bullseyes to designate Giffords’ district.

  5. Sometimes I have dreams of hanging all the Democrats and shooting all the Communists. That usually is a sign I need to go to the gym as I haven’t had enough exercise. But sometimes it’s an enjoyable fantasy for a few hours.

    1. And now I hear at least the title of the tune My Dreams Are Getting Better All the Time. Admittedly, the tune is about more pleasant situation.

      1. Old school Democrats could stick to murdering actual probable supporters of their political opposition. Old school Communists did not.

  6. The clearest example of the bias you describe can perhaps be found in the deployment of the terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” in which any effort to maintain the status quo is labelled conservative, so that the Kim regime’s oppression, the Saudis’ adherence to maintaining Sharia, and the United States’ support for principles of free expression and due process on university campuses are all “conservative.”

    It is the logic of three-year-olds and will, allowed to progress unchecked, reduce us all to that state of dependence.

    Playing the game of labels does nothing to change underlying realities, it merely distances us from them, rendering us less able to cope.

    1. It’s why I almost never use the terms “Liberal” or “Conservative.” Instead, I try to identify the groups I’m talking about by their positions and behaviors, using such terms as “statists,” “collectivists,” “leftists” (although that one is becoming less useful as the left tries to redefine “right” to include all violent far-left groups), “individualists,” “traditional Americans,” and “normal people.”

          1. Hm… you know, you have a very good point.

            Especially when you combine it with their habit of accusing others of what they are doing– I’ve been accused of being “authoritarian” because of my philosophical views, and supporting rightful authority unless there as good reason to believe they are wrong.

            Combine that accusation with things that have been going on since I was a kid– say, Bill Clinton signing into law rules about what is unacceptable workplace sexual harassment, and that’s 200% support, while violating behavior that’s unacceptable as a freaking decent human being, but that’s also 200% support because shut up that’s why. Or Obama is awesome and will never support homosexual marriage, up until he flipped and then everyone who held the same view he had a week before was evil.

            There’s no philosophy, there’s only authority.

    2. Well, that *is* what conservative means when you strip the political baggage from it. So at least there’s a pretty solid basis for using it that way.

    3. “any effort to maintain the status quo is labelled conservative”

      This leads to obvious contradictions, such as “Kremlin conservatives opposed to Gorbachev”.

      But the problem is a linguistic one, because “conservative” does sort of fit (one knows exactly who is meant in the usage above) and there is no good alternate term for such a faction.

      1. I think I would modify that slightly.
        “any effort to maintain the status quo in the face of changes that could be, or are, detrimental to society is labelled, ‘conservative’.”
        “any effort to maintain the status quo in the face of changes that are neutral or possibly beneficial to society, merely because one dislikes change, is labelled, ‘hidebound’.”

      2. When I was taking “History of Modern Russia” the Anti-Gorbachev coup was referred to as either the “Old Guard” or “Communist Hard-Liners”, never as Conservatives.

        Of course I took the class early at the end of the Bush years, so that may have been a factor; also the instructor for that class was probably the least doctrinaire leftest in the UofA History department, followed by the instructor I had for “History of Modern China.”

  7. They WANT the deaths of millions — or, preferably, billions. They just want to be able to point the finger at someone else (anyone else) to take the blame for it. After, of course, they de-humanize those they intend to murder, so they can say that it wasn’t really murder anyway, just a culling of useless eaters. They’ve been working on this for decades (why do you think it was so important to them to make abortion legal?).

  8. I first encountered the “all violence is right wing” whitewashing in a youtube thread a year or two ago. I was floored by the sheer gall of the idea.

    “Maleducated” is the perfect word to describe these fools. I’ve been using the term myself more and more.

  9. in which any sympathy for the army makes you an evil despot in waiting,…

    I am trying to think how I would explain to my gentle very Quaker old fashioned liberal friend that she is an evil despot in the waiting.

    Apparently there are people who are trying to give Justice Posner a run for his money on moronity.

  10. “But that wasn’t REAL socialism/done right/, and it’ll work when WE do it!”

    Every damned time. No matter the facts, no matter the evidence.

      1. Well, making socialism fail isn’t really something we can take credit for. It’s kind of built into the system. So we’re not really shifting blame, just pointing out the paucity of garments on the big man as he goes by.

        1. Don’t worry. They’ll try. Never the fault of a fundamental misunderstanding of humanity like the eternal power of greed

                1. A good portion of the internet reportedly runs on Lust.

                  Twitter and Instagram seem to be economies of Pride.

                  1. Personally, I’d go with Pride for Twitter and Envy for Instagram. Or maybe Facebook, but I’m leaning more toward Instagram.

                    1. The economy based upon Khan Noonien Singh’s wrath seemed to work out okay; surely that colony wouldn’t have survived without its impetus.

                      Say, does anyone know how the Klingon economy was organized?

                    2. In TOS, the Klingons were Trotskyites. In TNG, the Romulans were Trotskyites, and the Klingons were Objectivists. In Enterprise, they rebooted and made the Klingons use a thinly disguised version of Hitler’s socialism. In the lensflare movies, Klingon economic theory is entirely derived from Rorschach’s rants on minimum wage, controls theory, information science, and the wages on sin in Watchmen. (Alan Moore died in the middle of writing Watchmen in that timeline, the people that worked on it included Steve Ditko, Mickey Spillane, Eric Raymond, and Walt Boyes. Really big series with Klingons, you can see a few volume’s in one’s room, which is why we know who worked on it.) Hearsay says that in the new series, the Klingon’s will use Sparta’s economy. Iron money, helots, and other such trappings of socialism.

              1. What would a wrath economy be like? Perhaps it would reward the people who display the greatest anger? Like perhaps the loopholes the SJWs exploit?

              1. Now there’s a route….
                Greed of the sort to be avoided is sort of like lust, or gluttony; only an idiot would try to get rid of lust by getting rid of sex, of gluttony by removing eating.

                Free markets allow– encourage, and reward– the healthy, non-sinful expression of “greed.”

                1. Greed is an inordinate desire for material goods, it can not be healthy or non-sinful. Because the ordinate desire is not greed. 0:)

                  1. Properly defined, yeah, but these guys keep saying “greed” to mean “didn’t give me EVERYTHING they have,” kind of like they use “lust” to mean “any sort of desire.”

                    1. Also they take it as a given that no one making less than 50K a year can be greedy. No couch-crashing roommates need apply.

                    2. It sort of depends; we’re raising five kids, in a house we own, on less than that; up in Washington we had more but stuff cost more, too– the amount someone makes can be waived if they’re actually doing well, then they’re greedy for not giving it up for the couch-surfing guy in the same city with the same income who just…spends more.

                  2. I have seen it claimed that Christianity permitt{-ed,-s} or channels greed.. or perhaps one might better say envy, as the sin is “covet” (“I want THAT $THING you have. Yours, should be mine.”) but it’s alright to get one of whatever it is of your own, just leave others stuff to them.

        2. The perpetual motion device of governments/belief systems, violating whatever the equivalent of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is for that case. And oh so many Bullwinkles. “This time for sure!”

    1. Well, you know, it’s not very different from millenialist cults that confidently predict the Second Coming, and then, when it doesn’t happen, confidently predict new dates. This Time For Sure, as Bullwinkle used to say.

  11. I wonder if those millions have tipped over past a billion yet?

    Not any one group (unless you consider them all in service to the lowerarchy), but in aggregate.

  12. Am I the only one who, upon hearing “communism with a human face,” thinks of Hannibal Lector’s method of escaping captivity?

    1. “[SJWs] take a respected institution. Kill it. Gut it. Wear its carcass as a skin suit. And demand respect.”

      – David Burge, the Iowahawk

  13. “Antifascist” is a homonymic (homophobic? They won’t own [up to] the real term) as it would correctly be antefascist – they are but the first step to the next (trry at a) Thousand Year ‘Utopia’.

    “Attempted Utopia.”
    “Yes, exactly.”

        1. Not long before the fall of the Soviet Union, a man went to the grocer’s to buy potatoes. He waited in line for forty-five minutes, only to be told that there were no potatoes that day.

          “That’s ridiculous!” he said. “What kind of socialist society is it that can’t even provide the workers with potatoes?”

          The man behind him in the line said, quietly, “Comrade, you should be careful talking that way. It wasn’t that long ago that you would have been shot for it.”

          The man went home and said to his wife, “It’s all over. The Soviet Union is doomed.”

          “Were they out of potatoes?” his wife asked.

          “It’s worse than that. They’re out of bullets!”

  14. Hey, I happen to be one of those people who think money is icky! That green stuff we get from the government, and all that silvery-looking and coppery-looking stuff (now made with real zinc, to save costs!) just has no connection to value to the real world, beyond what our Betters assure us. We would do far better to trade in gold, silver, and copper, or in other commodities (I happen to like the idea of consolidating twenty to a hundred commodities, to dampen the volatility of any one commodity), than depend on some unaccountable Federal Reserve to govern our money system.

    I recently saw someone complain about a recent attempt to regulate one of the new crypto-currencies, by saying “people always want unregulated currency until they get burned, then they want government to step in”, completely ignoring that (1) this attempt to regulate things was occurring *despite* the people trading in said currency never having expressed an interest in the regulations, and (2) to make such a case, you have to ignore all the fraud and currency manipulation governments have done over the centuries — proving that governments are just as untrustworthy of protecting monetary value, if not more so, than regular citizens.

    Of course, having said all this, I understand I’m in the minority: I find money icky because governments shouldn’t make money, it should solely be a private affair. Most people who find money icky, do so because they lay awake at night in their beds, seething in anger over all those people who have more of that icky stuff than they do…and such people constantly scheme for ways to get that icky stuff away from the people who have it…

    1. It’s not that money is icky. It is that any value store means other people will both have more than them and be able to avoid being made to follow their will. They are fully on board with having money.

      1. Indeed. For such people, it’s only the money that other people have that’s icky. *Their* money (no matter how much it is) is as clean and pure as the wind-driven snow!

    2. Governments? Protect monetary value? You mean the same government that is mad at the fed for failing to reach 2% inflation?

      1. It’s amazing to see all the people who claim to be economists, while arguing that inflation is necessary to a healthy economy. The correct answer, given a free economy that uses real money, the ongoing productivity improvements produce a gradual deflation.
        Part of the reason for the confusion is that there’s also catastrophic deflation, but that’s a different thing entirely and is always caused by government manipulation of fiat currency.

        1. I’m not sure anyone can point to instances of anything other than catastrophic deflation, so it’s hard to argue for deflation as a whole.

            1. I’d always thought of inflation and deflation as across more than an individual product. (Right now you can see a subtle form of inflation in products that charge you the same for a lesser amount.) Hmm.

              1. I am reminded that I once paid (happily!) $200 for a hard drive adding 200 Megs of memory. Now, anything over a dollar a Gig seems unreasonable.

                In most fields deflation getting more for less is the normal process.

                1. well.. 1 TB ‘performance’ hard drives are about $70.

                  and i paid $300 for 16 MB of RAM back in the day.

                  and Linda Lee was killed over 16 mb of hot RAM

              2. Ok, if you define inflation/deflation as the average across a pile of products and services, then with real money, you’ll have modest deflation because the money supply is usually growing slowly (from mining) while the supply of goods is growing a bit faster on average (from productivity improvement). Some things will stay roughly constant in price or even get a bit more expensive as the money supply goes up. I’ve seen it stated that the cost of a good suit, in real money (gold) has been roughly constant since the days of the Romans.
                Taken as an average that way, inflation and major deflation occurs only as the inevitable consequence of governments tampering with the money supply, in most cases by the creation and mismanagement of fiat money. For more detail, read Ludwig von Mises.

    3. For the most part money isn’t money at all these days. It’s just a convenient way of keeping score that can be manipulated. I have 3 sources of income now, all deposited by electronic clicks into an account. I then use a plastic card to transfer some of those clicks to a retailer of some sort for foods and services, and automatic clicks each month to take care of mortgage and a few other things. Nothing physical that resembles money ever changes hands.

      One of the Nordic countries will be the first to totally eliminate currency in favor of electronic keeping score.

      1. Clicks are easier to deal with over paper checks, as used in the time of my grandfathers. Clicks are instant, checks require postage. I don’t have to go to the bank to buy special clicks when making large orders. I don’t do any tedious filling in of information… well, never mind that point.

  15. *Reads first few lines. Stops. Re-reads first few lines. Face-paws* Somewhere Stalin’s ghost is looking at Mao’s shade and saying, “What the [censored]? He called me a Trotskyite right-deviationist? What the actual [censored]?”
    *resumes reading*

    1. Sometimes the entire SJW/liberal/whatever vocabulary seems to devolve down to that famous Princess Bride quote…

    2. I made such an explosive snorting noise on reading that first sentence,’A friend got caught in a discussion on Facebook where he was told that Lenin and Marx were center-right.‘, it completely startled The Spouse.

      On reading this I am not much better off now.

  16. I must admit, I always find it heartening when the Left starts referring to communists as “right wing.” Because, you see, when they start saying that Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Marx, et al. are right-wingers, that means that they’re acknowledging that they’re bad guys. Yes, it would be nice if they would admit what ideology those bad guys subscribed to, but simply admitting that maybe a couple of things that Stalin did, like that whole Homodor mess, really were kinda nasty, is a good start.

    Baby steps.

    1. There’s a large ex-patriate Ukrainian community in my area. I haven’t asked what they think of the Holodomor, but since they moved to the U.S., I’d imagine the reply would be full of a lot of swearing along with “and I don’t see that they’ve changed much; that’s why we’re HERE.”

    2. Though we find it amusing, you have to remember that “right wing” doesn’t have any specific meaning to a liberal; it’s just a generalized piece of verbal poo to fling.

      I doubt they know enough about Marx and Lenin to identify their philosophies, and I doubt they have any firm ones of their own.

  17. There is the “world’s smallest political quiz”, created by Dave Nolan in 1970. It shows a bunch of different things, among which that “left” and “right” are both anti-freedom. They may differ slightly in which particular freedoms they hate the most: traditionally, the left likes personal freedom but opposes economic freedom (you’re welcome to smoke dope but you’re not allowed to be wealthy). Traditionally the right is the reverse (make all the money you want, but no smoking funny vegetables). Then there are fascists and communists, which hate all freedoms equally and are indistinguishable apart from some esoteric details in their doctrines of evil.
    The modern “left” has drifted gradually into the fascist/communist camp, since they still hate everything they did before but now hate freedom of speech and any dissenting opinion as well.
    Meanwhile, it’s encouraging that there seem to be more people of at least somewhat libertarian tendency (freedom both in the economic and personal spheres). The success of Erin Palette’s “Operation Blazing Sword” is one indication. That’s not to say the Libertarian Party is going anywhere, but that’s more a factor of the lack of libertarian principles in the “Libertarian Party” than any question of popular support for those principles.

    1. One of the things that complicates the right-vs-left issue is that, in the context of where “Left” vs. “Right” arose — the beginnings of the French Revolution — it wasn’t so much a case of “Do we want Freedom, or do we want Monarchy?” as it was “Who do we want to be our masters?” where some (the Left) wanted their masters to be chosen by the ever-shifting Voice of the People, and the others (the Right) wanted to stick with some form of Monarchy.

      This model fits very well in Europe, so while even in Europe, actual “Left” vs “Right” continually shifts, it’s always about who’s going to be in charge of things.

      The United States, though, has always had this weird liberty tradition, which is a completely different direction, which we might as well call “Up”, but for various reasons got lumped into the “Right”, and thus a lot of people who are “right-wingers” because they want to preserve and extend freedom.

      And because of this confusion of terms, some people will say silly things like “The Left and the Right, when taken to the extremes, will lead to tyranny, so if you Right-Wing Libertarians took over everything, you’ll just become like Nazi Germany!” without even considering how…interesting…it would be to create death camps while being completely faithful to the non-aggression principle, among other things…

      1. death camps while being completely faithful to the non-aggression principle

        Oh that’s easy: they’d be medical centers for self-selected, outdoor-enthusiast euthanasia patients. 😛

        1. True, but the fun part comes when you try to convince every last Jew and Gypsy and political dissident to get onto the train for those camps.

          Libertarian Nazi: Knock knock knock: “Hi, you’re the source of all that is wrong with your society. If you don’t die, then we’ll never become the Master Race that can take over the world. I’d like to invite you to get on this cattle car, where we’ll take you to the woods and, with your permission and written consent, euthanize you and burn your worthless carcass in a mass crematorium. Will you please sign this form and peacefully come with me?”

          Jew or Gypsy: Slams door. “Honey, get the shotgun! It’s one of those Libertarian Nazi bastards!”

          Libertarian Nazi: (after running away, panting, talking to companion.) “Blast it! Another rejection! What are we doing wrong?!?”

          Companion: “Maybe we need to refine our door approach!” (looks at watch) “Hey, we need to hurry to the Capitol for the Rally to Repeal Gun Checks! How are we supposed to keep guns out of the hands of those nasty Jews and Gypsies if the government keeps requiring gun dealers to check their identities first, before they buy guns?!?”

          1. The problem is, even under those conditions, millions would just get onto the cars, and sign the forms. Remember my objection to humans being consider herd animals the other day? Forget I said it. Too much evidence supports the view that most people are sheep.

        2. The Repairer of Reputations by Robert Chambers, first story in The King In Yellow, had voluntary euthanasia chambers I think.

            1. Nearly. The last few stories just about had me banging my head through the brick wall at work. There were a couple that were very entertaining though.

      2. ‘faithful to the non-aggression principle’

        It all depends on what you define as initial aggression.

        Even according to the (left-wing) sources I’ve looked at, jihad is only legitimate if it’s in self-defense.

        Jihadis just keep looking back far enough for an ‘initial’ act of aggression they can legitimately respond do. Back as far as Reconquesta, or even farther, to the kingdoms who refused Mohammed’s offer to convert when he sent letters to all the kingdoms in the known world.

        By that principle, I’m sure Libertarians can also find some sort of initial aggression they can defend themselves against, if they look hard enough.

        1. I think you’re making this harder than it needs to be. Given that the subject is self-defense, applying the non-aggression principle means you can respond to aggression against you. But not against some imagined slight of some remote ancestor 1500 years ago. If you apply self-defense more generally, as is normally done in civilized countries, so it also protects bystanders, the same goes: if you see a thug beating up on the person 20 feet away, you can respond; if you think someone annoyed a person in the next state over 150 years ago, you cannot.
          Also, aggression, as applied to the right of self-defense, means a physical attack on the health or life of a person. It doesn’t mean saying something that annoys another, or refusing an offer to convert to your pet religion. Well, it should also apply to defense against attacks on your property, though in modern times it is claimed that such a notion is a bad idea.

            1. What I’m getting at is: you can interpret with the best of intentions and in the clearest of circumstances, but oftentimes intentions aren’t pure and circumstances aren’t clear-cut, and the NAP isn’t the answer to everything.

              I don’t think anything is.

              1. This is very useful if you misinterpret the “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive aggression to mean that if I suspect you of planning to commit an aggression against me it is legitimate for to to take an aggressive action against you.

                “Your honor, I did not attack that man, I was merely preaggressing in self-defense” is likely not an argument you want to try in court … unless you fit one of several demographic categories which we need not address at this time.

          1. Even your example fails, though– what if there was a true harm done to an ancestor? Say, your dad stole that patch of land from my grandfather?

            What if a thug is beating up a person in the next state over? What if they did it yesterday?

            What if you are an abortionist?

        2. My “favorite” is justifying abortion via the non-aggression principle.

          You see, BECAUSE that is another human being growing there, and you don’t want ’em to do so, they’re aggressing against you.

          1. Well, it is your body. If there is any valid philosophical case for freedom of abortion, that’s what it is based on. I don’t know that it is valid, but it’s not laughable.

            If one cannot control one’s own body, surely that is a genuine invasion of liberty.

            One may argue that the woman consented to the pregnancy by having sex – but what if she was raped? Or “stealthed”? Or (unlikely, but philosophical dilemmas often derive from unlikely circumstances), a pregnant woman discovers that someone other than the putative father got his sperm in first by some razzle-dazzle? Must the woman bear the child?

            Does all this outweigh the point that abortion is, very arguably, murder?

            I don’t know. But it is not a simple question.

            1. For a number of years now pro athletes (at least, in my understanding, in the NBA) are advised to always use their own condoms and always take the used items away with them or make sure to personally dispose of the contents. There have been reports of their partners attempting to empty the contents within themselves.

              Suppose such a partner succeeds in impregnating herself in spite of his efforts to “protect” himself, then communicates to him an offer to abort the child for one million dollars or to carry the baby to term and sue him for child support of a million a year? Is that extortion, theft or what?

              Even discarding the elaborate efforts at impregnation, the potential quandary exists. It ought be sufficient cause for those guys to keep their zippers up, but that does not seem to be the case.

              1. In other words, if you’re successful, you better be a monk, or be willing to undergo sterilization, otherwise our “impartial” system of “equal” treatment under the “law” will allow her to avoid pregnancy at will, but will allow for your 18-year enslavement to someone who successfully defrauded you.

                And that assumes she doesn’t make it a life sentence by saying “support me or I’ll scream rape”; as Bill Cosby just conclusively proved, there is effectively NO statute of limitations.

                Want an actually misogynistic men’s rights movement? Because this is how you get one.

                1. Well, you could also be crazy like that guy, Rivers, who has like six kids– with the same woman, to whom he is married.

                  But that’s just crazy talk.

                  (Sorry, second hand snark about the national geographic flavor to interviews that were shocked at the idea of a faithful Catholic in football.)

                2. The same love of fame that would have a gal giver herself up willing to a celeb is likely to have her heading to the media to tell all about the encounter.

            2. No, it’s another human’s body. If one defines them as a non-person, that’s one thing, but to apply self defense they must be recognized as another human person.

              Goes right in there with the guy who killed his parents, then asked the court for mercy because he was an orphan.

              One may argue that the woman consented to the pregnancy by having sex – but what if she was raped? Or “stealthed”? Or (unlikely, but philosophical dilemmas often derive from unlikely circumstances), a pregnant woman discovers that someone other than the putative father got his sperm in first by some razzle-dazzle? Must the woman bear the child?

              Rather a different situation than the one being discussed, but the question is– can you kill someone because they, without any form of consent on their part, are put somewhere?

              If you can– if someone innocently being in a place you do not wish them to be is sufficient “aggression” to respond with deadly force– then that rather destroys the non-aggression principle.

              1. I will say that to date I’ve never seen the NAP used as a libertarian argument for abortion, only as a secular, libertarian argument against abortion.

            3. There is a saying — hard cases make bad law.

              Elaborated senerios on how a pregnancy began aside abortion ends a life. If one’s body is one’s own not to be controlled by another then who will advocate for the sanctity of body of the voiceless unborn?

              1. If I get stuck in a lifeboat with a random unrequested baby, or even with my worst enemy’s baby, the rule of human life is that anybody older than a baby has to take care of the baby. First. The only exception is things like oxygen masks… And think how hard the airplane instructions have to emphasize why it is an exception.

                If you do not accept the priority of baby needs, you are not part of human society. I don’t think libertarians would disagree with that.

                1. *sad* Which is why the unborn have to be dehumanized for so many of these attempts at pure freedom-based philosophy.

                  Usually followed by various levels of disabled.


                  1. The Soviet Union was the first “modern” nation to make abortion legal in the 1920s.

                    Following a demographics crash in the 1920s, not helped at all by the holodomor, the Soviet Union became the first nation to re-criminalize abortion.

                2. Every airplane instruction video I’ve ever seen has explained that you need to put your own oxygen mask on first. NONE of them have ever bothered to explain WHY that exception exists. The reason, of course, is because if you don’t get oxygen right away, you’re going to be loopy and incapable of helping your kids, so the best way to help them is to FIRST ensure your own ability to think rationally. (See the classic “Four of spades” video for what happens when you don’t get enough oxygen at high pressure: no permanent harm if you’re not flying the plane, but you aren’t going to be helping anyone else with their mask in that condition.)

                  1. I have not flown for fifteen, sixteen years, now that I think about it.

                    But the few times I did fly, they had lines of explanation that you cannot help a child if you are unconscious, so you put on your mask first.

                  2. The ones I was on said “put on your mask FIRST, then help others– you can’t help if you’re unconscious” too.

                    They showed a kid, but then an old lady too. (Was going to write ‘older,’ but the whole point was that she was suffering from age.)

                    So there are at least three variations?

                    1. Don’t let Lena Dunham see those — that attention whore will be storming about ageism for the whole flight!

                  3. That is because you are in a high crisis situation where your death is probable and will interfere with you saving anyone else. It is a false analogy to anything not so near death.

                    1. Yes.

                      …Honestly, I understood the point of bringing it up to be that for most people, in situations where they haven’t been taught to dehumanize, prioritizing the kid next to them is so obvious that you really have to hammer on the rationale that in this particular type of crisis, you look after yourself first so you can effectively help the kid.

                3. I think Heinlein mentioned something, once, about the fate of societies not based on “Women and Children First.”

                  1. now I’ve got an image in my mind…

                    See if I can describe it enough—

                    You need men and women to make babies(duh) and babies to make men and women.

                    You need men who will take risks, especially the short term high cost high return risks like “fighting,” or everyone dies.

                    You need women who will take the long term, lower but constant cost risks that are usually called “sacrifices” (when it’s not being used for the high cost risks that didn’t pay off) involved in nurturing kids, or everyone dies.

                    You need kids, or everyone dies.

                    A sort of triangle, with the kids on top– each of them is necessary for survival, but not sufficient in themselves.

                    ….and various memememememe groups currently mostly attached to liberalism attack all three. 😦

                    Guys aren’t supposed to be violent, or even so much as sacrifice a second to hold a door for a lady; gals are supposed to be rather caddish men, and kids are the worst STD you can get possibly short of HIV unless they are your 1.5 allotted replacements; one is best, but one of each is OK.

                    1. … one of each is OK.

                      These days? How Binary! How can you tell until they’ve made up their identities?

                      I’d say something about “the Crazy Years” but I don’t think even Heinlein would have tried to palm off anything like our present cast of characters.

                    2. “unless they are your 1.5 allotted replacements”

                      What? You’re allowed those?

                      I read a ‘child-free rant against replacement about how you would have two kids, and they would have two, and they would have two , and how that would lead to scads of people — because the author was starting from the premise that no one dies.

                    3. I know it’s at best an intellectual comfort, but… just knowing that there were people who wanted more, who REALLY wanted more, who thought of kids as something besides replacements and maybe a spare….

                      That’s helped a lot.

                      The folks who suggest we should “stop” because they’re worried about us are one thing– they have good motives, even if I disagree.

                      The ones that rag on us because we have “so many” and that’s somehow evil…that needs a counter-balance.

                    4. Then there are the MRAs who have decided that all involvement with women is essentially signing a slave contract – and don’t you DARE utter that Titanic vs. Estonia argument.

                      (That’s the only right-identified mememememe group I can think of, and probably only because the current left has borne way hard on the favoring-women thing.)

                    5. I took the “ctr-left” to be the guys telling me I’m not “really” a woman because I don’t think X, Y and Z, I’m not “really” my age because I don’t support X, Y and Z, and so on– while the alt-left, like the alt-right, have some shared goals but radically different philosophies and acceptable tactics. *thinks of some lions of the left* At least publicly.

            4. Then you agree that in the more than 99% percent of those cases where none of your questions apply, it is a simple question? After all, the woman, exercising her control of her own body, forced the baby to be there.

          2. I suspect that in the not-too-distant future, artificial wombs will be developed. In that event, Dr. Block’s evictionary principle can be applied. That is, you can evict the fetus without murdering the person.

            1. It is imperative that those artificial gestation facilities provide a viewing area, allowing the technicians to visually monitor inhabitants development. Damn right, I am demanding a womb with a view!

              1. At LibertyCon this year, there was a panel on space combat, and the tactic of launching enough missiles against an opponent was described as “launching a weber of missiles.”

                Someone has just earned a hoyt of carp……

            2. In theory– although unless it’s one of the flavors of libertarianism that holds that child abandonment is fine because they didn’t expect that the reproductive act would work this time, there will still be a strong demand for the kid’s death. At least there will be a chance that they’ll argue for abandoning the kids instead, at which point they can at least be picked up by someone else.

              That’s ignoring the human psychology involved; one of the commentors over at TAC sent me this article:

              Which quotes extensively from a woman who decries the artificial wombs because they threaten the right to a dead baby.


              The right gets accused, a lot, of variations of the “you just say that because you want ______” argument.
              Looks like that thing folks have noted about projection has another chunk of evidence.

              1. Which quotes extensively from a woman who decries the artificial wombs because they threaten the right to a dead baby.

                That and we are moving towards the right to infanticide. The insistence that if a child survives a late term abortion it should be left to die is just this. That has resulted in ‘born alive’ legislation, which is being fought by the pro-abortionists.

                No society will survive very long if it takes up whole-sale slaughtering of its young.

              2. One notes that no libertarian society, or any other with laws, can possibly work if a reasonably foreseeable consequence is not your responsibility if you didn’t expect it.

              1. And the abortion lobby foetal tissue supply industry is already upset over the prospect.


          3. I wonder how many who make such an argument would be willing to be poster children for Planned Parenthood: “Mothers, don’t let this happen to you.”

      3. Who should rule?

        I like this version of the answer:

        A proper Englishman rode up to a dusty ranch house and found a cowboy shoeing a horse. “I say good man, might there be something available to drink, my throats quite parched?

        Talking out from between the nails he was holding in his lips, the cowboy pointed and said “The well’s right there.

        The foreigner repeated his statement, but this time the busy Texan only had time to jerk his head in the direction of the well.

        When his demand for his horse to be held was met only with a glare, the flustered Englishman said “Tell me, where is your master?

        Spitting the nails from his mouth and standing straight, the dirty cowboy told him “That son of a bitch ain’t been born yet.

    2. Never did like that quiz, although it took me years to figure out what was wrong with it– oddly enough, figured it out because of a TV show from a decade or two before the 70, where Fulton Sheen did a long talk on what Freedom means. (I link it all the time, youtube has it with those three key words)

      The problem is that it hits the “they both push little old ladies” over-simplification– it defines “freedom” as lack of restriction, sort of, but only in the most direct of manners.

      Beyond moral issues, this runs into a paradox– there cannot be perfect freedom, because you must make one very broad rule about what people are allowed to do. If your rule is “there are no rules allowed except for this one,” then it’s still a rule– if the rule is “you cannot initiate direct physical violence against anyone,” then that too is a rule (and one that will require full-time enforcement unless EVERYONE has exactly the identical and very idealistic mindset). So all things restrict “freedom” of the “there are no restrictions” sort, and that’s even before looking at things like the way the physical world looks. (which, I know, is rooted in a philosophy that is not much liked by those who want to have a unified theory of everything)

      If it moves into “freedom” as protecting rights, then you have to decide which rights matter…and whose rights.
      Even if you posit a population of only young adults sound of mind and body who are bound only by those contracts they enter freely, you run into the problem of– can you freely choose to remove your ability to freely choose? No? Then no drugs….

      1. That quiz always struck me as a classic case of what magicians know as a “equivoqué.” While you may think you are selecting freely, the nature of the questions compel your conclusion. That seems an obvious problem for a Libertarian quiz.

        1. Incidentally– EVERYBODY, read that dang article. It is too cool, and has some handy rhetorical tricks to learn and look for.

      2. My position is that absolute unrestrained freedom is a feature of individuals with no contact with any other humans, not of human societies. Once you have two or more people who aren’t killing each other because they choose not to, you have a social contract that potentially infringes on choice. Anarcho-capitalism strikes me as a pointless complication of the deals underpinning a Republic.

  18. Diversity in Comics touched on this the other day regarding Rich Johnston’s tweet: Comics are full of ‘conservative’ writers, if you just use the British definition of ‘conservative’, tee hee, snigger snigger, and meanwhile talented comics writers are blacklisted and replaced with the Milkshake Crew.

    1. What I’m getting at, I suppose, is: do these people really believe this crap? Do they know what they’re doing? Or are they so ensconced in the echo chamber they think they’re telling the truth. I look at them, and they’re all uniformly smug, but is it with genuine sanctimoniousness or the duping delight of somebody putting one over on a sucker?

      Like Orwell said in 1984: they exhibit a kind of impudence with their deliberate reversal of facts.

      1. Yes, they really do believe the silliness they expound. They’ve never been exposed to any kind of opposing thoughts, or if they have they’ve had the belief pounded into them that any thoughts that contradict their dogma are automatically invalid and don’t have to be considered or even cursorily examined. If they did so their worldview could not stand. So anything they don’t already believe is lies, persiflage, and that most all-encompassing of epithets, “hate speech.”

        1. Many of them, yes, but I fancy I see the duping delight in some of them. Some of the arguments come across as just too carefully constructed, like they’re actively trying to put one over on you.

          1. I am not sure it is duping, somewhat more like they’re copying the answers off the papers of the smart kidz in class.

          2. Depends on the status of the one speaking. The ones actually pushing the movement believe in their divine right to rule. The lies they tell the untermensch are just that. The ones that believe the lies are significantly more populous and mostly predicated on envy and greed. So justification comes naturally.

      2. No, you have to think of it in purely rhetorical terms. There is no truth, and there are no facts. There are only effective statements. If a statement silences your opponents, or makes your fans laugh at them, or makes you feel that your opponents can’t possibly come up with a counterargument, then it’s “effective.” The idea of an appeal to facts or truth or independent evidence is itself a form of right-wing deviationism.

        1. Which is why the leftist with edgier marketing (Alt-Right) love themselves some rhetoric. Most of them really suck at it, as they do with being alpha male pickup artist, but they still keep on trying.

          1. That’s because they’re not alphas. They’re betas who think being a jerk towards others makes them alpha.

            1. I’ve read some who were more honest: they believe that certain styles of jerkiness will make (some) women respond to them as if they were alphas.

  19. Then there’s that time when John Cena redefined ‘patriotism’. Also ‘American’, based on the average proportions of differently-bodied and differently-abled and differently-gendered people.

    I recall when this was being shared around. I countered the first point (51 percent of Americans are female so the average American is a woman) with: “Yeah, because of the horrendously high mortality rates of MEN, on the job, in wars, etc.”

    My point was universally met with mockery and contempt. But of course, this was before the Trump election, when the other side believed they would have things all their own way in perpetuity.

    1. This notion that “The average American is a woman” just because 51% irks me. If we’re going to abuse “average” like this, then it’s more accurate to say “The average American is 51% woman”, which is absurd in its own sort of way: it illustrates that “average American” is a stupid concept, which should be thrown out altogether.

      Indeed, it should be thrown out, and replaced with “The smallest minority in America is the Individual. Anyone who isn’t defending individual rights is of necessity against minority rights!” along with a good dose of “Oh, and stop assuming that, just because you can put a label on a person, you can assume you know how to pigeon-hole his thoughts and dreams, his preferences and dislikes, his politics and beliefs!”

    2. He is of course wrong about the average American. Assuming that 51% of Americans are women, then the mean American is a woman, the average American is a “harumfrodite”. (It is so a word. Kipling used it.)

  20. The left abjures any use of force? Cool. So if I refuse to pay my taxes, a leftist government will not send people with guns to put me in prison, or seize my property?

  21. The thing that gets me is how evident it is that these kids have never been exposed to an opposing view. I was riding the bus in one of the most infamously liberal cities in the U.S. and overheard a couple of teenagers discussing how capitalism was evil. So I posed a few questions to them (how do you define value?) and a few pieces of information (like the fact that there are mooches at all levels, from completely broke to billionaire, and how the idea is to minimize those issues), and by the end of the conversation they had a look on their faces like they’d have lots of things to think about. “I never thought of it that way,” one said when he thanked me.

    (The fact that I opened the conversation with SF reading recommendations probably didn’t hurt. I love matching people to books.)

    Look, it’s pretty simple. A percentage—say 10%—will do the right thing no matter what. A similar percentage will game the system whenever possible. The idea is to make it attractive for the vast middle to do the right thing… and communist systems encourage “gaming” rather than the reverse. They also leave a power vacuum, and the folk who like to fill those are power-hungry, naturally. So communism easily falls into tyranny… (and so on.)

    1. It was reading sci-fi scenarios that got me thinking in unapproved ways too, which is why I was going to say we need to get more kids reading sci fi!

      Then I think about the new and approved (not improved) stuff coming out, and need to specify: older stuff or indie.

      Ironically, if was George RR Martin who dropped some redpills of realpolitik on me (dating from Storm of Swords): You’ve got a Wall. On the other side of the Wall is a culture that doesn’t see anything wrong with stealing, rape and murder (and that’s not even mentioning the Others). They’re incompatible with us. Likewise the Dothraki, and for the same reasons.

      1. It’s interesting how the politics of a work sometimes don’t mesh with the politics of the author. I know what Martin’s politics are, but he’s also the co-author of one of the most conservative books I’ve ever read (Windhaven).

        1. I never really considered that one ‘conservative,’ but these days its hard to know what to correctly label anything. To me, Windhaven was all about unintended consequences and living with them. Also when humans assert themselves and change things, it’s messy.

          1. “To me, Windhaven was all about unintended consequences and living with them.”

            And what is that, if not conservative? Windhaven struck me as a good narrative about the fact that, before you tear down that fence in your way, you need to think long and hard about why it was put there.

            1. Well…at the time it was written it wasn’t exclusively conservative, and there was a lot of focus among writers of a lefty slant to think about the consequences of upsetting things (as evidenced by the people who wrote the book!)

              That it comes across as conservative now is a testament to how bad the left has gotten.

        2. Now that I think about it, I actually see that theme in quite a few pieces of fiction from authors who actually remember having high hopes in socialism and then having to acknowledge the hell of Communism and the bloody mess of the French Revolution. Usually in the form of: “We were supposed to make things better, but look what happened!” or “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

          Martin, as you mentioned, and also Ursula LeGuin. Heck, even in China Mieville’s work the ‘revolution’ never really happens: it all goes wrong and bad guys seize control until the heroes fight off the worst and some form of imperfect peace and order is restored. There’s some realism that still makes them readable and entertaining.

          Not to mention the works of disillusioned former socialists. Orwell’s Animal Farm for one.

          1. Almost forgot Jack London’s Iron Heel, where he’s realistic enough to admit that there won’t be some magical change to socialism, and that the revolution will be as bloody and ruthless as the old order it seeks to eliminate.

            But all of it justified by the paradise to come…

            1. The interesting thing about The Iron Heel is that when you read it, you realize that half the reason Teh Evul Capitalists take over is because the Socialists are doctrinaire morons.
              There’s a scene early on where they attempt to ally with the Grangers, who want to own their own land, free and clear. The alliance founders on the fact that the Socialists refuse to back this particular play, because reasons, and as a result everything goes straight to hell.

          2. In one of her earlier novels (perhaps The Golden Notebook?), Doris Lessing (major British novelist, attempted writing science fiction later in life, Nobel Prize in 2007) portrayed characters in the British Communist party of the later 1940s as the revelations about Stalin’s genocides came out. She shows them going to meetings, asking about so and so, and being told “they left the Party.” There was a strong sense of “have they left the Party YET?” to all this; that is, everyone felt that leaving the Party was inevitable—but it was like contracting a fatal illness, because it meant both that you were surrendering all your lifelong hopes of a better world and that you were breaking with your entire social circle. And yet, even though they clearly knew that there was enough evidence to compel an honest and conscientious person to condemn Stalin, even against their will and at a terrible price, none of them would go to those people who had left and offer them sympathy or support. It was as if they had come down with a terrible plague that other people might catch. Really, Lessing made it seem quite heartbreaking, and as Nietzsche would say, “human, all too human.” But when I look at it now, it seems to me that people on the left back then must have been more intellectually honest than now, or at least some of them were.

      2. Every single culture in Westeros sanctions stealing, rape and murder if it’s their guys doing it. (Most obvious case: no one really seems to mind Gregor Clegane’s speech during the duel. I mean.) The only reason they’re incompatible is that they are also as hagridden by blood feuds as it is possible to be. And then if anyone tries to stop the cycle, they fail miserably and painfully and you get a lengthy discourse on how their good intentions made everything that much worse.

        I really do not care for that series.

        1. I’m pretty certain Gregor would’ve been subject to trial if he’d have ‘lived’, otherwise why even bother to try and conceal it? Twyin Lannister only let Gregor get away with it because he was too useful, but there was a sense of: everybody knows he did it, but he got away with it because of his powerful connections, but they’ve at least got to make a pretense.

          The ‘stealing, rape and murder’ in Westeros is only justified by people claiming they’re acting on behalf of their true and rightful king to establish order (thus the assumption that there is a legitimate way things should be and peace is a thing to be restored).

          So the politics behind the scenes is ugly and war is messy, but there are presumptions that there are laws and ethics and justice. There’s been some pretty rotten kings in recent generations (Mad King to Robert to Joffrey to Cersei) and leaders who’ve failed to uphold those ethics – which is the whole REASON behind all the turmoil.

          And of course, we’ve seen the results of when Ned and Tyrion respectively tried to ‘drain the swamp’.

    2. I can’t find a specific example now, but there are an amazing number of Millennials who say that they are in favor of socialism, but when you ask them, don’t have the slightest clue what “socialism” means.

      1. Here in Canada, many people describe themselves as libertarian socialists. I tell people that does not make sense, at all, it would be like me describing myself as anti-government left winger. No one knew what I talking about so I stopped objecting after a while.

        1. Government should support my right to do whatever I want and all the drugs I want.

          And not by allowing me but by coddling me and taking away all risk.

          1. “I can do whatever I want, and someone else has to clean up the mess I left.”

            The ethos of every spoiled teenager everywhere.

          1. ‘Libertarian’ as the equivalent of ‘libertine’ rendering ‘socialist libertarians’ those who believe the government should underwrite their hedonism?

          2. Whereas to veteran capital-L Libertarians, “libertarian” appears to mean “9/11 was an inside job.”

            But I do miss the ’90s.

        2. There is a long history, though more European than North American, of “libertarian” being used to mean communist anarchist. I’ve heard that some people were quite vexed when free market oriented North Americans appropriated the word. (Ironically, one of the main reasons for doing so is that statists had previously appropriated our word “liberal.”)

          1. Heh. I had been thinking of “pro-government anarchists,” the kind who riot at the possibility of elimination of their food stamps, subsidized tuition housing vouchers, Obamaphones, Medicaid and so on.

            1. Did you ever see “M”, Fritz Lang’s first sound film? (Lang did a brilliant job of making sounds provide all the significant clues.) A serial killer in a German city is murdering children. The police want him. So do the criminals; he’s making criminals look like monsters. He’s not lucky enough to fall into the hands of the police. . . .

              1. I saw it, and the American remake.

                In both cases, when the criminals put the killer on ‘trial’, he claimed he couldn’t help himself, and really, aren’t the people putting him on trial just as bad?

                While in both cases, the killer was somebody you wanted either dead or locked up forever, in the Lang version, the killer came across as pure, manipulative slime you just want to throttle.

                In the American version, the killer came across as an absolute wretch, as pitiful as he was dangerous.

                I wonder what that says respectively about the state of Germany and America at the time?

              2. I was involved in a stage production of M in high school. I’ve never listened to the Peer Gynt Suite the same way since.

    3. Gee, for some reason your comment made me think of this, available outside the paywall if you [searchengine] the lede sentence:

      ‘Fat, Dumb and Happy’ at the UAW
      An indictment details a multimillion-dollar corruption scheme.
      By The Editorial Board
      Aug. 3, 2017 7:03 p.m. ET

      In December 2014, United Automobile Workers vice president General Holiefield accidentally fired the gun he was cleaning on his kitchen table, hitting his wife, Monica Morgan, in the abdomen. If you think that’s bad, wait until you hear about the gut-shot the couple allegedly dealt to Holiefield’s union members.

      An indictment unsealed last week claims the labor chief, who died of cancer in 2015, secretly teamed up with his bargaining-table opponent at Fiat Chrysler, Alphons Iacobelli. The feds say they and other conspirators skimmed millions from the UAW National Training Center, a tax-exempt, Fiat Chrysler-funded entity that was supposed to help union automotive workers get job training.

      The indictment claims Mr. Iacobelli availed himself of National Training Center money, buying limited edition gold Montblanc pens and a $350,000 Ferrari. He also allegedly installed a swimming pool, outdoor kitchen and spa at his Michigan home, renovations that cost $375,000, and paid off a relative’s student loans.

      The indictment says the training center also spent $425,000 at a swag company owned by Holiefield’s wife, Ms. Morgan, while an additional $70,000 was funneled from the fund to the union boss’s nonprofit to his wife’s photography business. More training center cash paid for Ms. Morgan’s first-class plane tickets, her $12,400 four-night stay at the luxe Beverly Hills Hotel, and the $262,000 mortgage on the townhouse she and Holiefield owned, the indictment says. Happy wife, happy life, we guess.

      That’s in addition to the $924,000 Holiefield received in legal union compensation between 2009 and 2014, purportedly for representing the interests of UAW members. He and Mr. Iacobelli were responsible for negotiating contracts between Fiat Chrysler and the union over pay, bonuses and working conditions.That’s in addition to the $924,000 Holiefield received in legal union compensation between 2009 and 2014, purportedly for representing the interests of UAW members. He and Mr. Iacobelli were responsible for negotiating contracts between Fiat Chrysler and the union over pay, bonuses and working conditions.


      You don’t really need to read the whole thing, do you?

      1. And you just reminded me of the example I used for how someone can be a freeloader even if there’s no money at stake: “group projects.”

        As you can imagine, that example resonated with the students I was talking with.

        1. Ohhhhh… I never thought of that analogy. Thanks! That one’s going in my rhetorical toolbox right away.

          That, right there, is why any history teacher who wants to be superversive should make sure he or she assigns at least one group project per semester. Time it to come just a week before the discussion of communism and why the Soviet Union fell.

  22. Violence + Losing. You can’t forget the losing. If the Soviet Union hadn’t fallen, they’d be the ultimate goal of the Left. But having failed to achieve world domination, they’re now losers. The Left will never acknowledge defeat (one of the things that makes them so dangerous: if these increasingly deranged people ever face the true-death of their ideology, they’ll kill all of mankind just to avoid admitting they were wrong). Now that Communism is for losers, they’ve projected it onto The Right in exactly the same way they projected National Socialism onto us.

    Never forget: every good is them, everything bad is us. That’s their ideology.

    1. Except they’d be outraged if you used the word “Communist.” They’re totally not Communists. They call themselves “liberals.” Or “socialists.” Or “realists.”

      Whatever label they use, it’s still the same stink…

    2. Over some 108 years generations of Cubs fans forgave the loosing. As the long drought dragged on they even learned to celebrate it.

  23. So I guess that’s what they mean by “that wasn’t real communism”?

  24. “But the new and improved definition of “left” and “right” didn’t surprise me either, mostly because I read my kids school books, in which hard core communist regimes like Russia and China are called “right wing” and in which any sympathy for the army makes you an evil despot in waiting, and on and on.”
    Read you after just reading this:
    Will there be enough who realize this?

  25. Sin Eaters – “Part of this is the ethos of the education establishment. Most teachers are incredibly maleducated and taught by hippy-left professors”

    I taught english in south korea twenty years ago and their public school system was incredible. Teachers of any kind are held in high esteem in their society and public schools get majority of their teachers from top ten percent of graduating class in each discipline like history, algebra, chemistry from best korean universities. When I think of that system and compare it to how my canadian province hires teachers for its public schools, it is not surprising more and more people can’t Reason their way out of paper bag now.

    1. Have you considered the possibility that this is on purpose? A totalitarian government (such as what the left wants) needs its subjects to be ignorant. People able to think for themselves and make rational analysis are a clear and present danger to them.

    2. But at a certain level we try and imitate that. Special deals from car dealerships, lifetime pay and insurance, and the financial incentive all add up. But we focus on the folks with the proper piece of paper as opposed to actual learning. Don’t got an Ed degree? Maybe you can get certificate. Otherwise can’t even sub.

      We need education to be a minor at most. Get people trained in their disciplines, especially at the high school level. A physics teacher should be able to understand calculus.

      1. I’ve looked at the hoops I’d have to leap through to get “certified to teach Secondary history.” Erm, I don’t think so. Something about having to student teach while I’m also teacher of record? Granted, I could be reading the requirements incorrectly, but the very fact that the main TEA web-site insists that I contact a local college’s D of Ed to find out even the basics, suggests that I’m just fine as I am.

        1. And the people that get them are the ones used to jumping thru arbitrary hoops. Protects educrat jobs from upstart people who have actually used the subject irl. And as a bonus to .gov, changing curriculum because fed says is just another hoop.

    3. Here in Ontario, Canada government is a works program for middle class social scientists where everyone has good intentions and the results of their theories are rarely measured or announced publicly.

      I am good friends with a few high school teachers, have known them since university, and it is disheartening to hear them talk about public school system. All the teachers and administrators and educational theorists are all in it for themselves and they really don’t care about educating children to the best of their abilities.

  26. To me, this all seems a mutation of “Newspeak”. Fascism, per se, isn’t about dictatorship. It designates a system whereby government, industry, and society are focused on choosing and working toward common goals. It can be argued easily, that the U.S. under the “New Deal” behaved as fascist, all resources directed toward common purposes. Totalitarianism, there, arises when one faction of a fascist system starts disagreeing on the goals, necessitating arbitration, which leads to a final arbitrator, who become The Arbitrator.

  27. And I suppose they probably gave him his inhaler, rather than breaking his skull and throwing his body into a trash heap. Boy, it’s a good thing for the brave anarchists that their enemies aren’t as brutal as the anarchists claim they are, isn’t it!

    1. Uncle Joe, if anything, was moderate in that crowd. The meat grinder was already spinning, he mostly extended Red Terror to the most unhinged communists – Trotsky & Co.
      The hilarious part here is that many of the “innocently repressed military geniuses” Khruschev ordered to mourn were earlier arrested by the Cruel Tsarist Regime (and cruelly deported to another civilised area, rather than) for pacifist agitation, of all things. Go figure.

  28. One argument I have is that society, family, (most) institutions, and most individuals all want to reproduce in some way. And they all have different roles in how that happens. Society, normally in the form of government or church, makes the rules. And when making the rules, tried to make rules that reproduce the society. Let’s take Sharialand vs. the United States. In Sharialand, polygamy is needed to produce a society in one or two generations that looks the same as it does now. If any nation in Sharialand were to proclaim and enforce monogamy, in 2 generations that society would be completely different then all the rest of Sharialand. In the United States, legalized or widespread polygamy would destroy the current society and replace it with something different, and probably far worse if you value such things as individual freedom and women’s rights. SSM here is a sideshow. We don’t know the ultimate effects of allowing it, which as far as I’m concerned, was good and sufficient reason to continue disallowing it. But as a point I try to make to people, the Soviets always pushed non-traditional marriage forms into societies they want to collapse. In the Soviet Union itself, it was one man/one woman, period. There is a history of western radicalism proclaiming the need to destroy marriage- it was a goal of the French Revolution, one of them. Maybe all of them…. As for other forms of marriage and reproduction and how successful they are, ask one of today’s Spartans how communal barracks for children worked out for them. I like to tell people who say violence never solves anything to ask Carthaginians about that.

    Moynihan warned that changing Aid to Widows and Orphans to Aid for Families With Dependent Children, and equating single motherhood to widowhood would cause an explosion in single motherhood, with all the consequent pathologies. He was right.

    I think Chesterton’s fence story should be considered before major radical changes are made to the law. It obviously wasn’t with the ACA. All major changes have consequences.

    I think our founding fathers did an outstanding job of creating a Constitution and nation. And sincerely detest those who would abandon the Constitution for the Common Good.

  29. Eh, I’ll give them “center” as far as left and right goes but only because they’re at the very bottom of the Nolan chart, in the middle. Extreme government control. Those on the left tend not to be far off the very bottom of that same chart, they just don’t realize it because they haven’t thought through the consequences of their policies.

  30. ” … Their violence is JUST free speech, and any attempt to stop them attacking us (physically) even to the point of telling them “No, stop.” is unbearable violence.”

    I don’t always see things through the same lenses that you do … but that sentence is as succinct and accurate an observation as I have read on the hypocrisy of the Left. Or, IMO, the raw political corruption of language by the Left. “1984” said it first.

  31. It doesn’t help that Hitler is defined as “right” basically because Stalin needed a point of contrast. Eugenics are the only real point of difference between the two, and that was a not-particularly-partisan “smart set” idea until he exploded it.

    But “left” and “right”, applied over more than two decades at a time, are virtually meaningless anyway. Would Thomas Jefferson recognize Angela Merkel? Would Edmund Burke recognize Donald Trump? Heck, even with the term “progressive” – James Russell Lowell, Henry Ford and Rachel Maddow make a pretty oddly-matched set.

    Now, when Sarah says “left”, she means those who would strongarm the people into utopia. And that’s a fair principle. But I’d address the timeless directly. Less muddying of the waters.

  32. Here’s another hypothesis, much simpler than your: the problem is not with the political “compass”, but with the scope.
    Many “not left behind” are unable to see anything beyond Maoism on one end and (gasp) NATIONAL socialism on the other. Which is what led to… “Godwin’s Law”.
    So, of course, Marxism falls about in the middle of this. Sounds about right.

    1. A) It’s not an hypothesis. They are taught all war and aggression is “right wing” PERIOD. b) Nah. Marxism is the granddad of both Hitler and Mao.

  33. The weird thing is that this is not the oddest Marxist claim made to me in the last month. That has to be the person who said that the South made no concerted effort to capture Washington DC during the Civil War meant the whole war was really based on a scheme hidden from just about anyone but revealable through Marxist analysis.

  34. (mostly due to Soviet propaganda and leftist dominance of the medica)
    You’re being redundant…..

  35. a sort of vegetarian pastoral society who fights off enemies by saying “we’re really peaceful.”
    Sounds like a couple of ST:OTS episodes. One of them sort of proved that all that peace and loving didn’t mean squat in the face of some phasers. The other proved that all the peace and love was cool – if you could back it up with a magical ability to turn off all the ship’s phasers and photon torpedoes.

      1. No, you can’t. Even the Duffle Blog and the Onion can’t keep up with real life any more. Like Chicago suing the federal government for cutting federal funding if Chicago won’t follow federal law.

    1. Argh, that latter one reminds me of how the Nox from SG-1 drove me crazy (and various iterations of the same trope). They’re so morally superior about their non-violence because they have a massive tech advantage over those who would do them harm. I don’t begrudge them their pacifism, since they’re not relying on someone else’s violence to keep them safe, but preaching a morally superior position that can only be achieved with tech you’re not sharing? And that becomes untenable as soon as your enemies develop a counter? Yeah, that’s BS.

      1. Hah. That also reminds me of TriGun, wherein the main character preaches peace and nonviolence, but he’s a super-strong alien person that can survive subduing opponents in a completely non-life-threatening-for-them manner. When he convinces one of the regular humans to do it his way, the regular human dies in the fight. Of course, the main character doesn’t learn from this.

        1. I was pondering whether a superheroine I’m working on could kill someone with her power. The thing is, she has a guaranteed ability to incapacitate. . . .

          1. It’s likely, just incapacitate someone who’s swimming, and they’d probably die, or someone on a high ledge, or…

            1. The question is whether she will ever be in a situation where she can legitimately push it that far.

            1. But she doesn’t want to kill someone, she’s just sorta wants to know whether she could. And directly, not indirectly. It would after all have some consequences for deploying her powers.

Comments are closed.