Paving the Way to Hades by Synova

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

Paving the Way to Hades by Synova

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.
Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
—C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock

A wave of sentiment seems to be sweeping our nation that no action that is taken the name of opposing evil can possibly be bad. Or if it IS bad, that we’re supposed to be understanding of the sentiment that led the person to that place where they would hurt other people for good reasons.

I had a long conversation with a gentleman who couldn’t understand that accepting bad outcomes when the people creating those bad outcomes had pure hearts was not the loving position to take.

So it’s not even that the ends justify the means… excusing efforts to strip us (and it would be *all* of us) of our constitutional protections because it would lead to a good end, but even if it led to a bad end he couldn’t understand how a person would object when those involved were so clearly motivated by goodness in their hearts.

Bad “means” + bad “ends” + noble motivations = something that people should support?

You’d think that when stated that baldly, that the message would get through that this is simply unsupportable for any person who gives the least thought to other human beings and making a “Hell of earth.”

And I know from experience that the lofty goals, the loving hearts, the pure souls of the tormentors does not soften the abuse, but amplify it. And there is a reason that CS Lewis’s famous quote holds so true to me because I had an abuser given “approval of their own conscience.” In fact, I was a *project* of my 5th and 6th grade teacher.

I don’t blame anyone but her, because there’s no way that anyone could have really known how unrelenting she was in her constant attention to me. And 5th and 6th graders have no real way of knowing what is reasonable or not. Other students likely enjoyed her because she planned activities and fun things regularly. But if you were her project student, the one that she truly focused on to help you, your life was hell. I got through 5th grade by repeating a constant mantra that they could not give me the same teacher twice and when the year was over I would be saved. In 6th grade I found that she personally and specifically requested I be transferred to her classroom to save me from the German Battle Ax that taught the other 6th grade class. Terrified and timid, I mustered the strength to refuse to walk through her door. My parents were summoned to the school and the principal and that teacher told me how wonderful she was, she told me how much she liked me and how wonderful she was. The lesson learned, before I ever had the vocabulary to understand CS Lewis, was exactly what he described. The truth was there, I just needed the words, and up until my mid-20’s I would break down in shaking and tears if I started to discuss what was absolutely and utterly two years of focused abuse with the absolute best of intentions.

The German Battle Ax could have been expected to occasionally let me alone.

Now, across my social networks from innumerable voices, I’m told that it’s right and good and necessary to simply disregard our hard won rights and protections. People who have been given permission by their own consciences are arguing that it’s okay, or even necessary, to destroy the despised minority by all means possible for all of the very best reasons, because *this time* they are despised because they’re evil and our motivations are righteous.

As if that makes it better, instead of worse.

237 thoughts on “Paving the Way to Hades by Synova”

  1. Very true statement and exactly why the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Meaning well is not the same as doing well.

    1. I’m amazed no one has my favorite Man for All Seasons quote in this thread yet. This is a very tangible example of how a proposed action that is taken the name of opposing evil is bad:

      Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
      More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
      Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
      More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

      Similarly, cutting down the laws and Constitutional provisions protecting free speech in order to get to Nazis could well result in your own speech being curtailed. As Alito recently wrote – “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’” Kennedy expressed it slightly differently – “A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.”

      1. These twits are not even going to get Wales out of their bargain. They’re looking at a best case scenario of Venezuela.

        2. “Oh, Richard. It profiteth not a man to lose his soul in exchange for the world… but for Venezuela??”

        3. What they should be worried about is the old line “kill them all, the Lord will surely know his own.”

          1. Which actually wasn’t said at the siege it was claimed for. We have many contemporary accounts that do not include it; it first appeared a century later.

            1. Absence of evidence. Whether it’s reasonable to expect is arguable, and should be argued for specific accounts.
              Thus not quite “actually”, only “probably”.

              1. Which is evidence of absence.

                it’s “actually” unless you are prepared to assert that George Washington was not actually but only probably the commander of the American forces during the American Revolution.

      2. Or my favorite, usually attributed to Voltaire, as an abbreviation of his general sentiments, “I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it.”

        1. There was a kid in my high school was was fond of misquoting Voltaire: “Death to what you say and I disagree with your right to say it.”

          He was kidding (I think.) Today’s leftists aren’t.

      4. Not to mention the fact that if you decide that freedom of speech is no longer a general principle that protects all speech, it’s worth considering who gets to decide which speech is and is not protected. As Charlie Cooke pointed out in a recent satiric column, most likely it would be our elected officials, so that means….Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions. You really want to give those two that power, Leftist twits?

        1. Actually, at present more likely to be determined by various leftist administrations such as municipal (Berkeley, Charlottesville) and college campuses (eg. Missouri, Evergreen state, Harvard, and again Berkeley) and various leftist gangs as their thugs. They can’t legally shut down free speech, but they can stand aside while those willing to get their hands dirty do it for them.

        2. They probably assume that, with the help of Maxine Waters, only “acceptable” people will hold office. But leftists everywhere keep forgetting the fate of Trotsky and what that should teach them.

      5. I’ve been thinking that legislation and moral philosophy have (or at least should have) sometime in common with algebra—rules generally need to be structured around variables rather than specific values of those variables. For example, “X should/should not have power to some (particular thing)”, where X is any President, is a sounder rule than “Obama should/should not have power to do some (particular thing) or similar assertion about Trump.

        I think many perhaps most people have problems with this concept in both mathematical and political contexts.

        1. Most people taught by the progs have all sorts of problems with categories. They regularly assert that existence of someone in the 2d std. dev. negates the presence of the mean (and the 1st std. dev.). They also regularly confuse mean and median. Then, they commit the category error going both directions – whichever is the worst possible outcome to rationality and equality under the law.

    2. Claiming to mean well is not the same as meaning well, but I suspect actually meaning well gives worse results to the victims thereof.

  2. Oh the hubris of the do gooder!
    On the ingeniously devised wrack of persecution.
    As the victims shrink in fear.

    2. So you want to help the poor?
      Yes.
      By doing [X] which helps them?
      Yes.
      But what if you did [Y] and they could (and would. Human nature, eh?) thumb their nose at you and tell you where to shove your help?
      …..

      The lefty friends I keep are the ones who like Y better than X.

  3. Oh goodness gracious, that nonsense? Good intentions solve all. As if my smacking you on the forehead with a sockful of sand to smash a spider only I can see is kay because my intention was virtuous?

    Helluvaway to ensure people see spiders everywhere.

    Sorry ’bout your fifth grade nightmare. Mine was third grade, or possibly fourth — back in those days, of course, we were all taught in a one room schoolhouse perched atop a topologist’s horror of a hill that meant whether students went to or fro we always went uphill, and the spacial distortion established an endothermic effect ensuring it was always snowing.

    1. Hey I actually spent a year living where due to topological considerations and schoolbus routes I could choose to walk uphill both ways to school. and for a great deal of the school year it was snowing. On days I was feeling lazy of course I could walk downhill both ways.

          1. I used topological because topography doesn’t get you to a school which requires you go uphill coming and going, whereas topology will.

  5. WP Delenda est! Trying this again.
    God save us from the do-gooders. It’s a battle over the “Rights of Men” versus the “Rights of Man”. American revolution vs. French revolution, equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome.
    Do-gooders want everything to be nice and equal with everyone happy and gay in their sameness. In their minds and in their views of what is the same.
    I just want to be left alone to muddle along the best I can falling on my face in my own way. That way I KNOW my failures are mine and mine alone. As well all my successes are MINE and MINE alone.
    Good save us from the do-gooders and their thrice bedamned conscience.

    1. > I just want to be left alone

      And that’s the *problem.* There isn’t any “alone” in their world; you *must* fit in the pecking order somewhere. And they’ll keep pecking until you either accomodate them or slap them down.

      As long as you’re “not of the body” they’ll just keep at it, ratcheting things up as much as they can, until your behavior fits into their world view.

      2. They’d probably be okay with leaving just you alone, but if they did that, soon other people would be asking to be left alone, which would lead to still others wanting to be left alone and before long every-fricking-body would be asking to be left alone, and then the whole thing falls apart.

        You don’t want to be the one to make the whole thing fall apart, do you?

              1. Possibly one of the best descriptions and damnations of socialism that I have ever seen, and it was put on screen by a progressive. It boggles the mind.

                1. It seems that many progressive writers haven’t had any idea that they have actually been supporting conservative individualism. J. K. Rowling comes to mind.

                  1. Conservative individualism seems to sell more books and movies. Let the proles have their opiates — as long as they don’t think they have any capability to resist. Only “alt-right” refuse to serve the state.

                    If Captain Mal met either his creator or actor, he’d shoot them both as Alliance stooges.

        2. Damn straight I do. If my not holding it together causes it to fall apart, that’s proof that the design is fatally flawed.

    2. re: “do-gooders” — it all depends on what you believe is “good”, doesn’t it?
      I have no great problem with a do-gooder who exactly agrees with me – perhaps we’re both libertarians of the same stripe – but I cannot fathom a law that allows he and I to make rules for everyone else, but does not allow everyone else with all their divers philosphies to make rules for me.
      Thus – my conscience may be my guide for my actions, and for my opinion of others’, but further than opinion it may not go.

        1. Dang. You had to prompt a song …

          Robin and the Seven Hoods is by no means a particularly good movie, but it has some great moments by some guys who really knew how to deliver a number (not to be confused with the guys delivering a numbers racket.)

          1. One of the great things about it, is that it shows that the Do-Gooder Racket PAYS VERY WELL and is safer then being a hood.

        2. If you haven’t figured out “what is the Good”, others will figure it out for you.
          If those others were parents and friends, likely you’ll have absorbed enough to have a semi-cohesive sense of what is “good”, which means you have a conscience of some sort.
          Only if said conscience is submitted to an external standard (e.g. for some, God’s will as revealed in scripture; for others, another standard will do – even “the state/nothing above the state/nothing but the state”) do I begin to think the conscience is conformed to a morality.
          Those consciences made up a priori by the person – seem usually to be subjective, rationalizable, inconstant, incomplete, amoral.

      2. Another problem here is that if step 1 is someone thinks he’s holier than thou, therefore thou shall obey him, step 2 inevitably will be competition between several “holier than thou” types for being the holiest in the bunch and therefore the one others shall obey.
        And then… well… Cthulhu swims left some more.
        Because after a little while Cthulhu will be the closest baseline for that, one way or another – take Zhang Xianzhong (“kill. kill. kill. kill. kill. kill. kill.”) and Tumblrinas as two examples.

    3. ‘There is no freedom without economic freedom.’
      Milton Friedman, Free to Choose.

                1. So you’re taking all our cold! 😉

                  (Nah, it’s probably Congress releasing its usual dosage of hot air.)

                  1. I was rather looking forward to the dream of having it gradually get warmer, just for variety’s sake, instead of what usually happens.

                    Which is: One day, you’re freezing in bed, burrowed into the quilt and dreading the inevitable needing to leave your bed, and then the next you wake up having kicked off all your bedclothes, and removed all sleeping clothes in your sleep, because it’s 30 degrees and rising…

                    1. After mny decades of experience with the Weather I have reluctantly concluded that the Weather does not care whether or not I approve of or condemn it. I have finally reached an understanding with the Weather that I will say no ill of it if it will say no ill of me.

                      Happily, I find I have landed on Earth at a time when the effects of Weather are largely ameliorated by such pleasant devices as a roof, central heat and air conditioning. For these blessings I am duly appreciative.

                    2. Such is the weather here that I ignore daily forecasts and instead go for ‘four hours worth of forecast.’

                      Cos that’s closer to what I see when I look out the window. Also, lets me know when I should hang out laundry in the garden or in the garage.

                    6. Well, I guess that works. You’ll prolly have the local analogues. Coyotes – dingoes, black widows – redback spiders, rattlesnakes – most of the snakes here…

                      Not sure what the analogue to the SCREECHING FEATHERED DINOSAURS -er, cockatoos, galahs, etc are though.

                      And no roos. (Freakin 2m tall crash starters… be glad!) And no feral camels XD

                      Arizona sounds much safer. ^o^

                    9. I hope you’re referring to them causing crashes because they are IN the car, because if they are causing them just because they are in the road, I really don’t want to know. 🙂

                      OTOH, a honey bee legitimately caused my wife to have an accident. One got in the car and she noticed it as she came to a stop on an exit ramp. She’s allergic to bee stings, so she was trying to shoo it out the window, but concentrating on that caused her to take her foot off the brake. i had set the idle higher than normal as a stopgap measure, because the car had been stalling, and so it rolled up the slight incline and she hit the car in front of her.

                      When she got home, I looked at the bumper and wiped off a smudge, but the other driver turned in a bill to the insurance for $1500 (replacing tail light, bumper cover, and trunk lid).

                    10. Yeah, in the car. There’ve been stories of accidents because they fall out of the sun-screen thing, or fall on the driver from above. I read about one accident where a young woman ended up with a huntsman on her face, veered her car off the road, managed to jump out of the car before it ended up in the river alongside, and was described, I kid you not, in the news by a witness as “doing the spider dance, screaming.”

                      Her mother drove along a short while later, recognized the car in the river and stopped, in a panic. Fearing her daughter was dead, she was VERY relieved to see her daughter, sitting under a tree, crying.

                      NOBODY blamed her for the reaction, and were just grateful that she hadn’t hit a car, a person, or a tree (which would’ve killed her.)

                      I’ve extended the ‘check shoes for spiders before putting them on’ to ‘check car for spiders before getting in.’

                    2. 109 monday, 106 tues, 105 wed, 114 today…

                      i am convinced the weather heard me remark about not having any days over 100 all August and decided to rectify that

    3. because handbaskets made from all-renewable materials are the only method of transport available under their new order.

  7. I love it when people who are significantly below me in the intelligence department, with zero knowledge of my needs, desires, or situation tell me what I need “for my own good.” Or better yet, tell me that I need to sacrifice for “the greater good” (greater good).

    1. You need to respond, “You need to stop trying to coerce me into doing whatever you want, for your own good. And I mean it; if you continue you’ll find that you’re in appreciably worse condition than you are now.” And as for “the greater good,” explain to them that the greater good will come about when busy-bodies like them stop annoying those of us who are actually looking after themselves and those they’re responsible for.

    2. Notice how that ‘greater good’ never quite gets here. It always takes just one more sacrifice. That good better be pretty damn great when it finally shows up.

      1. The “greater good” always gets here.

        For certain values of “greater.”

        And certain values of “good.”

        Objects in mirror may appear greater than they actually are. YMMV. Not applicable in all states (e.g., always applicable in the state of Dream, scarcely applicable in the state of Awareness.)

          1. One of the best quotes from The Incredibles:

            Lucius: You tell me where my suit is, woman! We are talking about the greater good!
            Honey: ‘Greater good?’ I am your wife! I’m the greatest *good* you are ever gonna get!

        3. One of my favorite races in Warhammer 40K is the Tau, who always claim to be working for “the Greater Good”. Yet if you look at their society, it’s a caste-based society (with everything that that implies). The “highest” caste, the Ethereals, appear to have psychic powers, and other Tau somehow just want to do whatever an Ethereal suggests. Yet the Ethereals’ position on top of the caste hierarchy is not for their own benefit, but all for the Greater Good. Don’t believe that? Just ask an Ethereal: after he’s done explaining it to you, you’ll understand quite clearly how all of their actions serve the Greater Good, and you too will be happy to submit to their enlightened rule.

          LOTS more details available at http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Tau if anyone’s interested.

    4. I hate it when people who are allegedly above me in the intelligence departments, with zero knowledge of my needs, desires, or situation tell me what and how much I can afford to give to them and their cause of the day.

    5. The curious things about the greater good are:
      1. There’s always some good still greater than this.
      2. Someone’s good is always greater than others.

  8. It’s why Medicaid can drain hundreds of billions from the public trust and not improve health outcomes for the poor.

    It’s why GSEs like Fannie and Freddie can dole out taxpayer money for bad mortgages and help wreck the world economy.

    It’s why politicians can stuff non-negotiable US treasury securities in the Social Security trust fund so the lucre can go toward more immediate needs.

    Nevermind that the tax burden on our descendents is unpayable. What matters is that They Tried Really Hard You Guys.

    Who didn’t see this coming? We’ve gone full Orwell now. I just thought they’d be a little more creative.

    1. It won’t ever stop until either the states call an amending convention and strip the feds of the power they’ve seized over the past century plus, or the whole system collapses. I hope the former might occur, but I suspect the latter will.

      1. Adding “we really mean it” to the ends of the 9th and 10th Amendments would have no actual effect.
        The courts would still decide to flagrantly ignore them.

        Precedent is a ratchet (and a racket).

          1. Sixth too.

            In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

            As I had to point out to one legal “explainer” yesterday – there is no “unless” or “except” there. There is only “all criminal prosecutions.” Doesn’t matter whether it is prosecution for capital murder or shoplifting a candy bar. The statute that allowed Sheriff Arpaio to be denied a jury in his contempt trial is, prima facie, unconstitutional. The fact that courts have upheld that statute only means that judges have violated their oath of office.

          2. Sarah, the problem with the 4th is that word “reasonable”. Everyone’s idea of “reasonable” differs…. and probably should, depending on whether you are looking for an ounce of marijuana or an ounce of Sarin.

        2. “shall not be infringed” didn’t seem to help much for the Second Amendment. Maybe the Founders should have drawn arrows and frowny faces for additional emphasis…

          1. From The Road to Damascus:

            The right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense and defense of the homeland shall never be infringed, limited, rescinded, interfered with, or prohibited by any decree of law, decision by court, or policy by executive branch or any of its agencies, And this time, we mean it.

            It only lacks a “So there!”

          2. The objections to the Second Amendment that I’ve seen over the years basically revolve around the kind of “troll arguing” we are used to seeing from the general run of Lefties. They pick a phrase like “well regulated militia” out of context and bend it into some new shape that supports their want-of-the-moment. Then they insist their interpretation is the only reasonable one, and that anyone who disagrees is a Bad Person.

            If you manage to refute them so harshly they can’t maintain the lie anymore, they shamelessly abandon it and pick up a new lie. They never, ever, back up and they never, ever stop. They’re not right in the head, basically.

            The truly hilarious part is that if gun control laws ever became an impediment to the Left, they would all become pro-gun so fast it would take your breath away. It would happen in a day.

            This is why lying is a sin in the Bible.

            1. *cough*

              The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment
              From: Brian T. Halonen

              The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

              1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

              1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

              1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

              1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

              1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

              1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

              The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

              [END EXCERPT]

              So, a “well regulated” militia would be one in which every weapon is in good functioning order and whose members can be relied upon to hit what they aim at?

              1. I have long held the belief that the ever so examined and debated upon militia clause in the Second Amendment was placed there for the sole purpose of establishing a legal basis for the government to require citizens to maintain arms and equipment sufficient to serve in a militia muster. There is no other logical reason for the qualifier.
                The body of 2A simply states that our government has no right to infringe upon the natural right of its citizens to possess the means to provide adequate defense for themselves, their families, and their state.

                1. It would behoove us to acknowledge that the actual language of the Second Amendment (or any other portion of the Constitution) does not seem to impose any requirement by the Left to adhere to its plain meaning; they’ll reinterpret any word to any meaning so long as it serves their purpose. Arguments relying on the contemporary intent of those writing the document is simply allowing the Proglodytes to sidetrack us.

                  If the Second Amendment consisted entirely of four words — “We can haz guns” the Progs would still find a way to invert their meaning.

                  “No, it definitely does not mean that” or “Beeeep! Try Again!” is all the rebuttal they deserve.

                  1. they’ll reinterpret any word to any meaning so long as it serves their purpose
                    Post-modernism has always been to the benefit of tyrants.

                2. Back in the early ’80s, The American Rifleman ran some articles on the origin of the second amendment. My memory on this is a bit hazy, but I believe it was a compromise between those who wanted armed citizens the government could call upon at need, while the other group wanted the armed citizens to be able to protect themselves from the government. .

                  Both groups agreed that The Militia == all citizens.

              2. Many of the “well-regulated” examples may be read as “self-disciplined” — exactly in opposition to externally-disciplined. A well-regulated militia might be expected to drill together enough to act in common, to have established a hierarchy of command, and to avoid friendly fire.

            2. It’s also why the only useful rebuttal to their attempts to subvert the 2nd Amendment is, “Shut up. ‘Shall not be infringed.’ Go away.”

              1. “Molon labe” works too. Brevity is the soul of wit. 😀

                But again, the thinking man will make sure not to be stuck in a crack saying “molon labe!” to some bunch of half-wit minions. If you’ve got to the point where you’re “punching nazis” like the Left is doing now, you are losing.

            3. ” if gun control laws ever became an impediment to the Left, they would all become pro-gun so fast it would take your breath away. ”

              We already saw a preview of that right after the election, with leftists trying to buy guns of their own and starting their own gun clubs.

                  2. You have to understand, they honestly think we’re as more mean-spirited as they are…

                    FTFY. Remember, they imagine themselves the tolerant ones.

                  3. You have to understand, they honestly think we’re as mean-spirited as they are…

                    They may think it with one part of their minds, but I don’t think they believe it. If they did, they’d be as afraid of us as they are of Islam.

              2. And complaining about the waiting periods, the licenses, the impossible rules for storage…

                Man, I loved that! It was like beautiful music. ~:D

              3. The thing is, the Leftist gun buying surge died off pretty quick. The same AR’s that were nearing $1000 a year ago are being practically given away.
                The Left still hasn’t gotten the idea that if they want power, they will need dudes with guns. And that means either having their own guns, or working hard to get the favor of those that already have them.

                1. They expect their police and the military will do all that for them.

                  The police may be a lost cause, but the military isn’t fully converged yet.

                  1. The same military that they’ve called “babykillers” and “war criminals” since 1964? The military that they try to cut the budget and pay of? The same military that is getting saddled with endless powerpoint presentations of whatever the politically correct outrage of the moment is?

                    1. That’s them!

                      Remember, in the leftist’s heirachical society, they see themselves on top, and the military has no choice other than to suck it up and obey.

                      They see the military as serfs, not as government employees, and certainly not as fellow citizens.

                  2. The senior hierarchy of the blue state metropolitan police forces may be a lost cause, but their rank and file come from the same social groups as the military rank and file. Out here in fly-over country, even the command staff are likely to be that second group.

                    1. It is worth remembering that a few years ago, when NY state progressives attempted to establish a gun registry the state’s sheriffs said “#@!%& That!“

                2. So much of what they know about firearms is wrong.
                  They are not magic wands that compel one to obey.
                  A pistol bullet will not pick a person up and throw them across the room.
                  They do not turn a kind soul into a bloodthirsty killer.
                  Their use does not automatically turn blacks and hispanics white, that’s the media’s job.
                  They do require some skill in operating, and a good bit of practice, not something the left excel at.

                  1. The job of turning Hispanics white was contracted out to the FBI.
                    The FBI crime statistics forms demand that “Hispanic” only be used for VICTIMS of crime.
                    Hispanic PERPETRATORS of crimes may only be entered as ‘white”.
                    And then the original data is suppressed, and THEN the media gets to twist what is left to support their dreams and idiocy.
                    JPDev

                3. Some of them figured out, having had a gun in their hands, that a shooter may also be a target. That idea made it a lot less fun.

                4. Yeah… I look at those lovely things on the walls for $500 and I think “But I don’t have $500…”

                  Still out of reach *sigh*

                  1. Count yer blessings – here in the Glorious Peoples Republic, those scary black guns are verboten, so I have to make do with something in 6.5 Creedmore that will poke gnats left eyes out all day long at significant fractions of a mile, which being non-semi-auto, is obviously totes safer than black colored guns in 223poodle caliber.

                5. The thing is, the Leftist gun buying surge died off pretty quick. The same AR’s that were nearing $1000 a year ago are being practically given away.

                  Ooh. That’s good to know. I’d like to have one in a .308 for deer and hog hunting. Had to buy a refrigerator this year, though, so … shrug.

                  1. There’s still a hefty premium for the AR-10s and hybrids, but far less than there used to be.

                  2. The Black Sheep Sporting Goods in my neck of the woods was having an “AR blowout” and couple weeks ago: I think the highest price I saw on the board was $799. Most of them were in the $499 – $599 range.

                  3. Keep in mind that there are two distinctly different versions of the Stoner Armalite rifle, the AR15 designed around the .223/5.56 cartridge, and the larger AR10 built to accommodate the .308/7.62 round.
                    In the current market I can assemble an AR15 from parts for around $500, but an AR10 still runs closer to $1,000.
                    If you’re mechanically inclined and good at jigsaw puzzles building your own AR is a great way to spend a few hours in useful effort. You’ll certainly understand the workings of the finished firearm much better that way.

                    1. In a couple months i am going to build a 9mm AR that takes Glock mags and has a 10/.5″ barrel and an ”arm brace’

                      After i get my new shotgun.

                      Yes, i am going to be buying many ” which CA gun law does this one break?” “All of em” guns..

                    2. Draven: I am NOT a “gun guy” (nothing agin ’em, just not into ’em.) but damn, I like that. Have fun. Lots and lots of it. And then some more.

                    3. Long as you pinkie swear to only hold that brace against your forearm, never tucked to your shoulder.
                      And yes, I know they changed the rule, but what can be changed by decree can be unchanged just as easily.
                      Suppressors and short barreled long guns have no business being on the NFA in the first place.

                6. Of course. The Left discovered proper gun ownership requires responsibility.
                  – “What? It doesn’t aim itself?”
                  – “I keep yanking on the trigger and I can’t seem to hit the target.”
                  – “I bought the biggest bullets I could find, but they don’t seem to fit in my gun.”
                  – “It makes too much noise.”
                  -“But nobody practices shooting on TV!”
                  -“I have to clean it?”
                  -“I thought Cap Pistol was short for Captain’s Pistol.”
                  -“The salesman said it takes slugs. I’ve used up all of them from my garden and need more.”
                  -“I live on a boat at the marina in Jersey City. Does that mean I need a water pistol?”
                  -“I put 10 hair clips in it but nothing happens.”

                  1. “-“The salesman said it takes slugs. I’ve used up all of them from my garden and need more.”” It takes SHELLs, man; you need some .22 SNAILS, mannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

            4. All too true.
              The Left’s moral positions have only one position: what’s in it for them?

        3. The Constitution is dead and buried. Let us spend a moment in reflection to weep for its passing. Then we must set forth to build a better tomorrow.

          The Constitution died because it had no claws with which to defend itself. There was no “or else” clause written into that fine document. If those who wield the mighty and majestic power of the law do not quake in fear of their lives and fortunes should they tread wrongly upon the liberties of the people, they will certainly not fear a simple piece of paper with words written upon it.

          Thomas Jefferson was absolutely right when he spoke about the tree of liberty, nutrition thereof.

          1. Some of us have long felt that the “or else’ was embodied in the terms of the Second Amendment.

            1. Hmm. That fella that shot up the baseball practice this summer was exercising the non-existent, “or else” clause.

              To be frank, I think that should be exercised every time an agent of the federal government violates someone’s Constitutional rights; if only to encourage said agents to rarely, if ever, violate them. It would however, require two things: People be properly armed, and people actually KNOW what their Constitutional rights are.

              And yes, I know the legal method is to take the government to court. But there are many things the government will not allow legal challenges for, and the track record for the common person winning is abysmal.

      2. The problem with amending the Constitution to enforce it is that it never was enforced to begin with, and amending it to say “we really mean it” is not going to work any better than the original text did. The trouble is that, pretty much from the time the ink first dried, politicians in all three (or more) branches have perverted the plain English text of the Constitution to their own evil ends.

        “Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should therefore be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense; and their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure” — Thomas Jefferson

        If this isn’t obvious already, read the Federalist papers — a collection of propaganda pieces written to argue for approval of the Constitution. “Vote yes, because the proposed Constitution will do x, y, and z”. Yeah right — compare it with what actually happened… Or read Article 1 Section 8, and ponder what small fraction of which few Federal departments are actually permitted to exist by that text. Or (highly recommended), read St. George Tucker’s 1803 book about the Constitution (free download available, search for it) in which he spells out a large quantity of infringements already in place at that early date.
        It’s possible there might be a way to amend the Constitution that would actually help: an article giving every citizen standing to sue any official of any rank for infringement, to be tried by a jury, and the official to lose his office, his future eligibility for any office, and at least 5 years in prison. Neil Smith has proposed such a thing in the past (though I think he suggested the death penalty, a notion that certainly has merit). But as matters stand today, government officials can and do infringe the Constitution every day, with no consequences ever.

    2. Don’t forget Head Start. Study after study has shown that, best case, it does absolutely nothing, yet we couldn’t possibly stop shoveling more and more money at it because, “It’s for the children.”

        1. And there be the reason you see rank and file wanting it. Means they can dump jr off and have someone else pay babysitter. And even better for the party it means moar teecherz and moar doos.

          1. There is also the fact that it creates and maintains a constituency for a government program, supporting thousands of government employees who can be guaranteed to howl if their toes get pinched by any effort to tighten the sandals.

        2. Well, more likely to go to heaven than someone who was just nakedly out for their own gain, anyway.
          However, there’s also Lewis’ comment on prostitutes vs. Pharisees: “…a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.”

  11. Condolensces. I had my own year of hell teacher, second grade, but at least I got a little of my own back: she didn’t think I was going down the stairs fast enough one time so she shoved me. I lost my balance, fell down the stairs, but I grabbed her hand and we tumbled downstairs together.

    She was limping the rest of the year.

    Might be a lesson in that somewhere.

        1. “Sorry I accidentally stepped on your face when I tried to get up. I was disorientated.”

    2. Second grade was my year of Hell as well. But, at least thanks to Mrs. Brown I *really* know my multiplication tables up to 12 X 12 . . .

  13. “A wave of sentiment seems to be sweeping our nation that no action that is taken the name of opposing evil can possibly be bad. Or if it IS bad, that we’re supposed to be understanding of the sentiment that led the person to that place where they would hurt other people for good reasons.”

    What we’re really looking at is a Faction, as the Founders of the USA understood the term. This is the Socialist Faction, the more government is better government people.

    They’ve been losing, lately. After taking power following World War 1 and cruising through the 20th Century unopposed, they’ve finally experienced some resistance. They lost an election!

    That’s supposed to be impossible. The Faction controls both Parties, they control the nominations, they control the voting rules, they control the polls. They control the media. They can’t lose.

    But they LOST! Trump is Not Their Guy! Trump is not playing by the rules!

    So they are going to war. They lost following the rules, therefore the only thing to do is throw the rule book out the window and beat people up if they don’t obey the faction.

    Their morality and compassion is defined by being in their faction or not. That’s what makes someone a decent person or a despised enemy.

    We went through this before, in the 1970s. Eventually, being an Antifa dickhead will go out of style, and the Useful Idiots will pick some other flag to chase.

    What I’m finding somewhat disturbing this time is that some governments are using the rioters as enforcement. Berkley particularly is putting down any sort of political opposition by disarming one side in a demonstration, and then having their police force stand down. They’ve done it twice now. That’s a bad sign.

      2. They’ll probably be released with apologies and souvenir photos.

        There are three steps to justice here – the police, the prosecutor’s office, and the courts. I’m long past having any faith in any of them.

      3. Still not clear if these were administrative arrests, as required for resumes submitted to certain companies in the SF Bay Area, or actual arrest-arrests.

        1. Sorry, dumb Easterner here. a) What’s the difference? and b? Wait, some San Fran companies *REQUIRE* you to get arrested at a “protest” in order to get hired?!?! Tango Foxtrot?!

          1. Some police department in the Glorious Peoples Republic of Californistan, is rumored to have offered, on their website, to do vanity arrests of protesters, as souvenirs or something.

            It’s… not a general Western thing.

          2. And as to the latter – there are rumors that in at some tech startups in the SF Bay Area, having such arrests-of-conscience on ones record help get ones resume to the top of the pile, since one is so socially woke, ones social alarm clock has gone off even if one hasn’t completely got woke, or something.

            This applies more in “social media marketing” roles than in positions that need actual hard skills.

            The “vanity arrest” resume thing might also happen down in Hollywood, though for having so many high profile social warriors, that industry still hires remarkably conservatively for run of the mill (i.e actual working) positions.

    2. “What I’m finding somewhat disturbing this time is that some governments are using the rioters as enforcement. Berkley particularly is putting down any sort of political opposition by disarming one side in a demonstration, and then having their police force stand down. They’ve done it twice now. That’s a bad sign.”

      It is also a time-honored Democrat Party privilege right rite. They did it in the Reconstruction South (one reason the 14th and 15th Amendments were enacted and why they were unenforced), they did it in the Jim Crow South, Woodrow Wilson had his thugs engaging in it during the War To End War For All Time (best used by 1935) and Orville Faubus, George Wallace and Lester Maddox practiced it in response to the 1950s-60s Civil Rights Movement.

      So long as the MSM sees no enemies on the Left they will continue to confront the problems of Right Wing Extremists who insist on head-butting Progressive knuckles, truncheons and bricks. When such enemies of History obstruct progress there can be no doubt who is initiating violence.

      1. “George Wallace and Lester Maddox practiced it in response to the 1950s-60s Civil Rights Movement.”

        I remembered that, I just couldn’t remember who it was that did it. This shit was going on all through my young life. It was on TV every night when I was a little kid and in grade school.

        So now we come full circle and see the #BLM pulling the same stunt on the #KKK. All the while pretending righteousness, as the #KKK did back in the day.

        Makes you tired, don’t it?

        1. The Klan, then, was a semi-official arm of the Democratic Party, as BLM is now.

          “Any type of extremist will do, as long as they thump the heads we point them to.”

        2. No, just reminds me that the KKK and Antifa were founded by Democrats to advance Democrat goals.

      2. Imagine the Left as a 98 pound dude with too much ego and a bellyful of dutch courage, and the Right as the 250 pound MMA enthusiast who really just wants a few well earned, peaceful drinks after a hard day at work, and the little dude is running his yap and is trying to start some nonsense.
        Our big guy is holding back because he knows he could destroy the little twerp, and the post fight nonsense isn’t really worth the hassle. But if that little punk keep it up, or tries to actually bring things to fisticuffs, things won’t be all that pretty.

        1. I sort of dispute your analogy. Instead of a 98-pound dude I am seeing a 98-pound girrrrrl* complaining when punched that the big bad neo-Nazi wouldn’t stand still so she could clock him with her bicycle lock hit her, a girl.

          *Less upper body strength than a 98-pound dude

          1. While tracking down an appropriate video for the above observation, I came across this, which I am posting because of prior discussion of the Charlottesville car-ramming.

            No endorsement of this presentation is intended, and at 54+ minutes I am not watching it. Click through to look at the description and reach your own conclusions.

          2. I’m sorry, but I’m looking at the image in the video and thinking “Long necklace, dangling earrings and a nose ring … I could put that child in a world of hurt.”

        2. Be very, very, careful. The 250-pound dude might be able to wipe the floor with the 98-pounder, but all it takes is one jab with an infected needle to condemn the bigger guy to a slow death.

          And the 98-pounder will be wearing a mask, and will blend back into the crowd. And no one’ll have seen anything.

          1. Decades ago, there was an attempted armed robbery at one of the last country stores near where I lived. Both the robber and the owner died in the gunfight. But the store stayed in operation, and was never robbed again.

            A 250 pound dude might die from an infected needle, but by the time he’s finished with the 98 pound dude, that will never happen again.

          2. Ricin. Holy crap. Probably not worth hoping the Antifa don’t read Wikipedia or know who Georgi Markov was.

      3. Actually, Maddox did no more than have one or several barrels of pickax handles in his restaurant, and patrons would grab them when blacks tried to enter. For a full blown use of riot for intimidation, you have to go back to events like the Camila Massacre.

        FWIW, Maddox ran and won on a strongly segregationist ticket, and pickax handles were distributed as campaign favors. When Walking Tall became popular, there was the sale of Walking Tall sticks, some of which looked suspiciously like pickax handles. Made me wonder if there was a surplus somewhere.

        1. “berkeley-police-say-letting-antifa-beat-reporters-protesters-forestalled-greater-violence/”

          Even without accessing that link I can say that I believe letting Antifa beat reporters would probably be educational for both sides in that engagement. Allowing them to beat protesters, even thugs, bully-boys, psychopaths, sacked policemen, security guards, sacked security guards, racialists, Paki-bashers, queer-bashers, Chink-bashers, anybody-bashers, Rear Admirals, queer Admirals, Vice-Admirals, fascists, neo-fascists, crypto-fascists, loyalists, neo- loyalists, crypto-loyalists. … (ahem – pardon me) … is likely a bad idea and a gross violation of First Amendment rights.

          grot!

    3. I guess we can be thankful 0bama and Hillary insulted Trump, and he decided to be mostly the opposite of what he has stood for previously, just to get back at them in not so petty revenge.

  14. Captain: You’re gonna get used to wearin’ them chains after a while, Luke, but you never stop listenin’ to them clinkin’. ‘Cause they’re gonna remind you of what I’ve been sayin’ – for your own good.

    Luke: Wish you’d stop bein’ so good to me, Cap’n.

  15. Even with their party not in power, and a President they refuse to trust, these morons want their (& our) Rights curtailed.
    That is well beyond turnip, surpassing parsnip levels of stupidity.
    That is what we are dealing with.
    What could go wrong?

  16. One reason is that they are using other people’s money to force their good intentions on other people. And as PJ O’Rourke pointed out, in that situation, who cares what the results are?
    Even the most rabid SJW will disregard intentions and look at results when their own money is on the line for something they want done for themselves- say, getting the roof on their summer home replaced with Vermont slate. They could be the loudest supporter of some bloated, inefficient government program with good intentions but near negative results, but should their contractor mess up in the slightest, off to court they go.

  18. I was a sufficiently nasty little boy that I would have told you nightmare teacher to fuck off and leave me alone…and my growly PhD. Father might well have seconded the motion. He was the adopted son of a Methodist minister, and was so petted and hedged about with concerned little old ladies that when I was young he gave me specific and explicit permission to bite anyone who patted me on the head.

  19. I had the misfortune to have the highest intelligence test numbers in my entire class all through K-12. Of course convention at the time was to expressly not tell either me or my parents this. So all I knew is that I was singled out far too often by teachers and expected to perform at a higher standard. After graduation from high school it took me fifteen years to return to any sort of education at which point I breezed through bachelor and graduate STEM degrees.
    It is what it is, and I’ve had a very good and rewarding life, but I cannot find it in me to forgive those teachers and counsellors who felt the need to attempt to augment their own lives vicariously through me.

    1. I’ve had two teachers who were convinced I was short bus special, and the first got me tested to a fair-the-well in second grade. They came up with mild dyslexia, exacerbated by extreme boredom in class as my I.Q. came back quite high. Her concern got me the embarrassment of a Blinder made from cardboard game boards set on my desk for tests and in class work. I drew on the back side to spite her.
      The second teacher was told off by the other 7th grade teacher that I didn’t have the problem as I was smarter than the complaining teacher, and he was boring me but also disliked by me for his forcing me to take “Music Appreciation” when I wanted a study hall. We were offered a choice of the two, and after most of the guys, and some of the girls chose study, the music teacher made some claim that they were going to do something (A play/musical? Forget which. ‘s been a few years) and needed non-singers/non-musicians and most of the study folks wandered over, leaving 4 or 5 of us in the study side of the classrooms. This teacher said he wasn’t going to be bothered to mind us for that one period and told us we had to go over there and participate and get graded. 3 of us refused even then but he won out and got an extra “off” period to spend being an ass in the lounge. We won by refusing to do anything and when we were “failed” we pointed out we didn’t want the elective and there were no grades for study hall, which we tried to do studying while suffering interruptions of Disco Dance instruction, recorder flute instruction, etc, and also pointed out the excuse given to draw all the others out of study hall was never done, i.e. we were lied to anyhow.
      The only other teachers I had big issue with was the one who just didn’t like me, but she didn’t like a lot of us (4th grade) and my Junior year english/lit teacher who never gave me my school work when I missed the first month of classes due to breaking my leg badly. He failed me with an “Incomplete” but at the end of the year it was gotten annulled by my mom pointing out I had homework sent by all the other classes I took, even work I didn’t plan to take because I had to drop a 2 period welding class and picked classes up without being in them the first day (I broke my leg the night of the first day of classes). As this teacher never gave me work then, and never got around to giving me make-up work after the “incomplete” that first semester, and I passed all his exams even the first semester one, the lack of my work was all his fault.
      Yaknow, I had a crush on his daughter, I wonder if that was why?
      Those last three teachers were the only ones I really had issue with in that I had an active dislike for them. All the rest, I either put up with easily or was neutral on, except the few I really liked who I still drove mad with my lack of note taking, homework, as well as slack class participation, yet I had a penchant for passing their tests and exams.

      1. I didn’t have too much trouble with teachers aside from one year in the Princeton public schools system, while my Father was on sabbatical, and the whole school hated that bitch, including the other teachers,, except for her chum the Principle. But my first year in middle school coincided with a brand new Principal. She had a bright, shiny, new Ph. D. In Education, and thought that made her and Expert who could talk down to the parents in her school district.

        Apparently, nobody had told her that that middle school drew students from the bedroom communities of several colleges. She tried the “I’m an expert in Education, and you wouldn’t understand” riff exactly once, in a PTA meeting full of doctorates held by people who considered Schools of Education the Higher Education equivalent of Special Class.

        Only lasted on semester. Silly bitch.

          1. I’m told that there were a couple of Parent interviews that didn’t go at ALL the way she thought they should. Wish I’d been a fly on that wall for one or two. She didn’t have much effect on how the school was run, down on my level though.

      2. a Blinder made from cardboard game boards set on my desk

        It wasn’t the teacher for me. It was the school, itself. They had decided the “open architecture” style was appropriate for elementary school. There were no interior walls (except around the art room, the cafeteria, and – natch – the administrative areas). So, 3 classes per grade, nothing but low bookcases between them, the grades positioned around an oval, 3 to an end (library and big presentation ‘pit’ in-between), with high bookcase walls between them (and another several feet open to the ceiling above those).
        Third grade wasn’t too bad – nothing in 1st grade to really distract me. Fourth grade, though…. Sixth grade was a definite distraction. Fifth grade was alright, since it was hard to see the fourth and sixth grade films. Sixth grade was again a problem as I watched all the 4th grade films I missed the first time around……..
        Middle school was marginally better (they had at least put up walls between classrooms, though no doors).

    2. So all I knew is that I was singled out far too often by teachers and expected to perform at a higher standard.

      This was more or less why I was the one trotted out of class – no matter what class it was – to be put in the audience and asked to ask intelligent questions and make the college look good.

      *sighs* Just ‘coz I asked former President Ramos if it was possible for the Philippines to return to economic growth as the Asian Tiger Cub in the late 1990’s… and he spent the rest of the time answering that question in detail.

  20. I’m coming to think that, when aimed at those over age 6 and of sound mind, “this is for your own good, you’ll thank me later” should be considered fighting words and so treated by both the party being “helped” and the Courts of Law.

  22. Sweeping our nation? This has been going on almost since Day One. You don’t even have to look at Jefferson vs Hamilton on a national bank; we have the Alien and Sedition Acts. The story of Davy Crockett and Farmer Bunce would have taken place in the early 1800. Prohibition happened roughly a century later. The natural inclination of man is “There ought to be a law” with no thought given to negative consequences.

    1. The natural inclination of man is “There ought to be a law”….
      More accurate , I think, to say:
      The natural inclination of man is “There ought to be a law for those sorts of people”….

  24. Whatsoever, for any cause,
    Seeketh to take or give,
    Power above or beyond the Laws,
    Suffer it not to live!
    Holy State or Holy King—
    Or Holy People’s Will—
    Have no truck with the senseless thing.
    Order the guns and kill!

    3. From the same poem (“McDonough’s Song”):

      Once there was The People, Terror gave it birth;
      Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth.
      Earth arose and crushed it; listen, O ye slain!
      Once there was The People, it shall never be again!

      (its catchy “refrain” *almost* remembered word for word, missed only the “Earth arose and crushed it” part).

      The accompanying story (“As Easy as ABC”) is worth reading, quite genuine libertarian SF *from Rudyard Kipling* with one of the slickest dodges ever used to create a fictional non-governmental government (the ABC in the title, and I won’t spoil the trick here). It even seems (if vaguely?) to share a setting with other stories, like “With The Night Mail.”

      (Oh, yeah, and I believe there’s something about race-based rioting over a statue, though I couldn’t say their solution would travel well to the here and now.)

      When someone like Clive Staples Lewis *or* Joseph Rudyard Kipling says something, it’s usually worth listening to; when they *both* say much the same thing in much the same words (“made a Hell of Earth” etc.), typically we’re well into “ignore at your peril” territory…

  25. I know Rand isn’t always the most beloved of libertarian thinkers, but she had it spot on for this.

    From her introduction to Anthem:

    “…the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one’s eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: “But I didn’t mean this!”

    1. There is ingrained in my memory a news video featuring a bright young progressive holding up his recently arrived insurance bill after Obamacare got rolling, and saying, “I knew somebody had to pay for it, but I didn’t expect it to be me!”

  26. One of the advantages of persuading people that Hell and the Devil don’t exist, is the corollary that there is then no longer any Road to Hell to be paved, and thus Good Intentions will end only in Good Results.
    Any religious system which encompasses a belief in the inherent imperfection of mankind (“The natural man is an enemy to God, and has been since the beginning”) can predict (among others) these two things: power corrupts; and where there is money, there will be fraud.
    One prime example of reality mugging idealism is the slime pit that resulted from guaranteed student loans without institutional frugality or accountability, coupled with a culture demanding college graduation for jobs where such was not needed, and attendance for those who were either not interested or not capable.
    Rampant fraud, skyrocketing tuition, useless degrees, and administrative drones were the inevitable result.
    Ravening hordes of progressive professors was not inevitable, but was pretty much foreseeable.

  27. couldn’t understand that accepting bad outcomes when the people creating those bad outcomes had pure hearts was not the loving position to take.

    Or in other words: “Thoughtcrime is the only crime”?

Comments are closed.