Sufficiently Advanced Malice

Image by maciej326 on Pixabay

It has long been discussed, when talking about public figures “is this malice or stupidity?”

I remember the previous administration inciting this question, and I don’t remember that it was ever resolved.

Post 2016, having observed both the transparent malice and rampant stupidity of public figures (mostly, but not all, on the left) as well as the way they think that stupid malice or malicious stupidity are attractive, has led me to formulate a new axiom, which I first stated inverted, but RES suggested it this way, and it seems to be more fitting: sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from stupidity.


Let’s take the case of our former president. For reasons that a child psychiatrist should have made sense of long before the man came of age, he hated and resented America, the (white) grandparents who raised him, the mother who didn’t desert him, and in fact everyone and everything connected to America, to the point of not liking very much the pomp and ceremony associated with our flag, and refusing to show it any kind of respect.

Look, it’s not even that hard to understand. Boys want their fathers, and if the father is absent they tend to idolize them. For Mr. Obama, this led him to idolize Africa and socialism as well.  (His mother likely contributed to this, as did his grandparents who were, already, themselves, red diaper babies.)

This means that he hated America both for ideological reasons and reasons of history.

Which means that he did stupid things, like go on the apology tour, or try to bring the US economy down in the full belief that this would cause the rest of the world to be better off.

This is because hatred makes you stupid. You can’t help it.

Just like love makes you see everyone and everything related to your love in a golden light, and think that you share far more than you do with your chosen mate, hatred makes you think anyone relating to the thing you hate is tainted and needs to be ended.

Mr. Obama hated us, and everything about America from free trade to the Constitution must be wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and to be destroyed.

Which was stupid, because he owed everything he was to America, and could survive nowhere else. And also because people aren’t completely stupid, and despite the treacherous media, and his hidden organizations, America eventually caught on.

In the same way, Occasional Cortex might not be as stupid as she sounds.  It’s just that she was raised expecting to automagically succeed.

I can tell you that, because she is, give or take, my kids’ age, and no young woman, let alone a MINORITY young woman ever got called on their sh*t be it academic lack of effort, or bullying classmates and generally making themselves pains.

No, every girl and young woman, particularly minority ones, got given what used to be called a gentleman’s A, now surely a lady’s A, and told they were a bright shining star and the world would be astounded at their brilliance.

And then they hit the cold cruel world. What we know about Ms. Very Occasional Cortex, is that she had a rather undistinguished working career, from bartending to trying to start her own business and flopping.

Of course she’s convinced — trust me, as someone of a similar sex and race background, I got told this every time I failed by one or more helpful people.  “Helpful.” — that this is the fault of racism and sexism and capitalism.

And she hates them. She hates them, my precious. She hates them and that awful place called America.

Which means it makes the Green New Deal (green nude heel) fatally attractive to her.

Sure, it’s obvious that she can’t do arithmetic except in the sense that two plus two equals coconut. And she can’t figure out how economics works. That you can blame on her schooling.

Mostly though, she is blinded by hate of the “cruel” system that didn’t treat her with the respect she’d like to be entitled to. So blinded that even had her comprehension of science and economics been greater than zero, she would still embrace the Green Nude Heel. Because it must be true. It must work. It must.

Like Mr. Obama, wanting to fundamentally destroy transform America, she seized the boogeyman she was threatened with all through schooling (my kids were): Global Warming.

With this boogey man she can convince people to fall in line, stop all this unfair striving and succeeding people do without permission, and thereby become “the boss” and dictate what everyone gets to have.  And of course, the system will be caring and compassionate even to those unwilling to work.

Her malice makes her so stupid that she states these things out loud, while her confederates have only whispered them behind closed doors.

Is she stupid?

Oh, dear, with either of my examples, if they were as stupid as they seem to be, it would be doubtful if they could walk and chew gum at the same time.  Mostly they’re malicious: full of anger and hatred to America and all Americans. And this makes them stupid.

As stupid as Hillary Clinton when she decided that calling us “deplorables” would make us vote for her.  Who even thinks like that?

So, sufficient malice causes people to be stupid.

Do not let yourself be blinded by hatred. It’s all right to hate the ideology, but try not to hate those who spout it. Instead, try to understand.

Because one stupid faction is enough for a century or two.

And the stupid don’t tend to survive.

306 thoughts on “Sufficiently Advanced Malice

  1. The more I read about her campaign finance maneuvers, the more worried I get. We have seen this script before, and it doesn’t end well.

    1. Except this time she’s angered the Democratic high-ups enough (threatening to primary out her fellow party members who aren’t progressive enough for her liking = bad move) that I expect she’ll be hung out to dry once the FEC attempts to bring charges against her.

      1. If they are too frightened to hang out Omar to dry for her repeated patently anti-Semitic statements that could have come out of Goobeell’s office, they won’t take any action against AOC, no matter how much she threatens them. Those who don’t actively support the radical left and anti-Semites are far to terrified of them to take a stand.

            1. But young people don’t pay tons of money into campaign coffers.
              The young radicals tent to… oooo! Squirrel!!

        1. Omar hasn’t helped to kill a multi-billion dollar deal in NYC either. There’s a lot of connected Dems missing out on a lot of nice $$$, from the Unions guys looking at featherbedding and overtime, to the developer with the inside scoop on what properties to buy ahead of time, to the inspectors looking for bribes, to the suppliers looking to mark up the stuff they sell, and so on.
          Lots of broken rice bowls in the local party.

        2. I disagree. The FEC complaint seems like Nancy’s fine Italian hand in play. She will have that held over her head, until she gives evidence that she has learnt her lesson. If she continues, she will be dragged into EXPENSIVE and drawn-out investigations, along with some truly nasty whisper campaigns against her, her boyfriend, her family, her allies.
          Most people will fold under that kind of pressure.

          1. The FEC complaints were both filed by Republican activist groups. I doubt Nancy is happy with it because she and the rest of the Democrats use the same financial playbook as AOC.

            1. But where did they get evidence?

              Pretty much all the stuff that’s happened in the last few years by conservative activist groups has involved someone who is definitely not an activist going “this thing is wrong. There’s no way I could possibly do anything with it…but hey, those guys over there….”

              1. I strongly doubt Nancy is just going to sit there, and let those young punks run her out.
                I’ve also got serious doubts that the corny fascist getting rich from Democrat largess are going to let the true believers take away their rice bowls.
                The snapback is happening- they just got to do it in such a way that they look clean.

                1. Heck, Nancy came back from the political graveyard. I swear she’s half vampire, half mummy. If AOC ever makes it to such a ripe old age, she’ll be nothing more than a zombie.

                  1. Mr Houst, as a representative for Mummies, Vampires, Zombies and other supernatural creatures we would like you to withdraw your defamatory statements in comparing these relatively harmless creatures to House Speaker Pelosi. We thank you for your prompt action in this matter.

                    Law Offices of Kinnison, Worsel and Tregonsee LLC established on Klovia under its laws and customs.

      2. It’s not clear how the infighting in the Democratic Party is going to play out.

        Hillary seems to be planning to clear the field of frontrunners by dropping oppo, and then running again. (Making the March 5 Babylon Bee article premature.)

        Pelosi is clearly of the “not going to cross Clinton” faction, but may grow fairly weak depending on how much credibility Clinton manages to spend.

        I think it is hard to say for certain.

        1. Hillary… eh. She burned up all the political capital she and Bill had in the runup to 2016. Now, she’s old news, a has-been, a two time loser in the presidential candidate race.
          And she’s really not all that good at the political thing.

          1. I figure you both might be right. She may Birther the field (everyone seems to forget that was why Trump was a birther, set upon 0bama by his friends the Clintons) in hopes she can swoop in for the nom, but really most on her side, just want them to go away.

          2. No, what Hillary is pretty good at is knives in the back from the darkness behind the curtains.

        2. I’m all for the infighting in the Democratic party, Get the Popcorn and the twizzlers and lets you hand him fight :-). I’d say cat fight, but cats have far more dignity and a set of marquise of Queensbury style rules that normally keep their battles from be fatal or usually even crippling. The Denocrats (it can be hopped) will fall closer to the mythical kilkenny cats (

  2. now surely a lady’s A

    I suspect the folks doing that sort of thing would disdain the title “Lady” thus suggesting an other word would be more appropriate. The most obvious substitute, starting with the letter C is unduly coarse and should be reserved for stronger purposes, and Twit, with its close semblance to a somewhat ruder term (one having a different interior vowel) is both prone to slippage and insufficiently gender specific.

    In view of the feigned fierceness which commonly accompanies such vapidity as hers and the bias of those prone to promoting her, might I suggest a “Grrrl’s A” as the preferred title?

    1. Z-Man uses the term “Xirl” to refer to idiocy of this sort. Eg. “Xirl Science”. Xirl’s A, yeah, I like that.

    2. Fem’s A?

      To my knowledge, I only got one–that was in Spanish, and I no can language. I think I got a B, because the teacher is a sexist. (I just thought she was creepy, only figured it out when my brother– who WAS good at it, also got a B.)

    1. I admit to being dazzled by this bright shimmering star of the political firmament.

      It is rather what I imagine staring into a black hole singularity would be like.

      1. I can kind of wrap my mind around AOC.

        It’s the people who treat her as a lodestar that I can’t begin to comprehend.

        1. I can see it. She’s…glitzy. Straight out of Central Casting for “Young, woke political figure”. Surface charisma, quick on the comebacks (even if they’re to manufactured straight lines), checks a bunch of intersectional boxes. If you lean liberal in that low-effort kind of way, she’s pretty inspiring.

          Needless to say, I don’t. The main thing she inspires in me is suspicion.

          1. With the number of ethics complaints against her, that seems to be the appropriate way to go.

            Seems miss inexperienced couldn’t get a good enough lawyer to explain to her what was actually legal in an election…

  3. A good many years ago (early 90’s) I was on an online service known as GEnie (run by General Electric, thus the capitalization). In the “Science Fiction Roundtables” another author by the name of Daffyd ab Hugh (who at the time identified as libertarian and clued me in on differences within libertarianism such as minarchist and anarchist). I’ve long since lost track of him and have no idea what directions he’s gone since. That said, he formulated the following:

    “In politics do not attribute to stupidity what can be explained by malice. The truly powerful are rarely stupid.”

    Even in the case where the public face is stupid, look to the malice of said public face’s handlers.

    1. “Not stupid” does not necessarily mean “deliberate malice”, however. It could mean short-sighted, tunnel-visioned (VISION {tm} being a big thing for certain politician types), blinded by stars in the eyes, etc.

      Particularly if they also have sociopathic tendencies that make them think of people as interchangeable widgets who will take direction.

      It’s enough if they think WE are stupid.

      1. Actually, the “why” is largely irrelevant. Deliberate malice, short-sighted tunnel vision, ignorance, or stupidity, the end result is the same. And only in the case of ignorance can they possibly be educated out of it. Tunnel vision and ignorance unwilling to learn automatically become the stupid.

        We know what the problems are; we know who are the ones behind those problems. Fixing those problems is where we have a problem in agreement and implementation. It’s kind of like trying to cure stage 4 pancreatic cancer with chemo-therapy. If we do nothing, the patient dies. If we do too little, the patient lingers and then dies. If we go whole hog, we might end up killing the patient. But nearly killing the patient is the only way we might save them.

        1. Tunnel vision and ignorance unwilling to learn automatically become the stupid.

          Willful ignorance is a form of self-imposed stupidity. It has become the Left’s stock-in-trade, allowing them to dismiss any attempt to add knowledge as “White Privilege” and to defend their state of disgrace as “Authentic” even though the only authentic aspect is its stench of brimstone.

          1. The ignorance of the Left is invincible because they seem to have capability of admitting even the slightest possibility they might be wrong. They are certain they are right and know everything.

            1. Ignorance is invincible not when you can’t be bothered — that’s not only vincible but supine — but when a reasonable effort would not remove it.

              1. It’s not a matter of effort, it’s that the people needing to make the effort don’t see any need for it.

                1. It doesn’t matter why you don’t make the effort, not making it makes the ignorance not only vincible, but supine.

            2. The ignorance of the left is a studied action. If I may be permitted a rather ancient (and non PC , particularly to German sergeants) reference they remind me nothing so much as of Sgt. Schultz from Hogan’s Heros. They’re standing about seeing something they know shouldn’t be and saying “I see nuttink!” and heading the other direction.

            1. More annoying. Ignorance is fine as long as someone is willing to work to fix it. It’s impossible to know everything and anybody (except God) that says they do is full of crap.

              Crap, should have been ‘don’t seem to have the capacity’.

        2. ” ignorance unwilling to learn ” is either supine, and so just as evil as malicious, or affected, and so — because of the hardness of heart involved — as evil or more so.

          1. Unfortunately, qua Lewis, one of the Adversary’s greatest tools is the ability to instill disbelief.

      2. Particularly if they also have sociopathic tendencies that make them think of people as interchangeable widgets who will take direction.

        Which points at the proper direction– “working off of bad information.”

        They may be DELIBERATELY blind, but frequently they believe stuff about reality which causes them to attack someone that does not actually deserve it.

        It’s kind of like figuring out if the dog is vicious, sick, or protecting something, though– you deal with stuff first, and THEN think it through; the assumption of mistake in the short term is generally the least likely to result in long-term bad results, as long as you don’t allow it to hobble you from stopping the current bad situation.

  4. Today’s entry into the annals of malicious stupidity:

    Jim Clyburn’s defense: Ilhan Omar’s experience is ‘more personal’ than Jews who had parents in the Holocaust
    by Philip Klein
    As Democrats line up to defend Rep. Ilhan Omar and come up with her excuses for her anti-Semitism, House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., tried to minimize her comments by arguing that she escaped violence in Somalia, so her experience was “more personal” than Jews who merely had parents survive the Holocaust.

    The Hill reports, “Clyburn came to Omar’s defense Wednesday, lamenting that many of the media reports surrounding the recent controversy have omitted mentioning that Omar, who was born in Somalia, had to flee the country to escape violence and spent four years in a Kenyan refugee camp before coming to the United States.”

    The article quotes Clyburn as saying, “There are people who tell me, ‘Well, my parents are Holocaust survivors.’ ‘My parents did this.’ It’s more personal with her … I’ve talked to her, and I can tell you she is living through a lot of pain.”

    This has to be one of the more bizarre efforts to protect somebody who has repeatedly peddled the worst anti-Semitic tropes, despite multiple interventions by people explaining exactly why her words were offensive. The implication is that because Omar fled Somalia she gets a free pass to target another religious minority.

    It also in itself is deeply offensive. Remembering the Holocaust, and the oft repeated phrase “Never Again,” is about making sure we’re proactive about combating anti-Semitism before it manifests in ways that lead to mass slaughter.

    Not to mention, it isn’t as if anti-Semitism is an abstract problem. Hate crimes against Jews are on the rise. And in every year since statistics have been compiled since the 1990s, more anti-religious hate crimes have been committed against Jews than any other religious group, even though they make up only 2 percent of the population.

    1. I want somebody, anybody, to show me how America has invaded her country and killed 6 million Somalis… by letting them IMMIGRATE.

      I mean, they may -think- they’re in Hell when they look out the window, but really its only Minneapolis in winter.

      1. This is an demonstration of how eagerness to defend the indefensible causes a person to put his intelligence in a lockbox. Somalis such as Omar were collateral damage of a societal collapse. While Clyburn would undoubtedly fail to acknowledge the comparison, the appropriate parallel to The Holocaust is America’s racial slavery: deliberate targeting of a race (by the Nazis definition, Jews were a race, with their religious a mere subgroup) for invidious abuse. At least in the Antebellum South Blacks were merely treated as animals to be used and abused but valuable nonetheless; the Nazis compared their targets to vermin, rats and fleas, and employed them as laborers only to facilitate their extermination.

        I would suggest Clyburn watch (reading it is undoubtedly too much to ask) The Diary of Anne Franck which, unlike Roots, has the virtue of being factual, but I am confident his weaponized ignorance would insulate him against any grasp of the protagonists’ predicament.

        1. Sigh. “This is an demonstration …” began life as “This is an example …” and I clearly failed to alter it adequately when opting for the word ultimately used. My apologies to all sensible readers who were nonplussed at such egregious grammatical criminality.

        2. Clyburn has also defended Farrakhan’s notwithstanding Farrakhan’s lengthy vocal explicit anti-Semitism, including such things as calling Jews wicked and comparing Jews to termites. Clyburn defends Omar because he agrees with her.

        3. This.

          If you were to say to a black individual, “Your experience isn’t as authentic because your grandparents survived slavery and the KKK,” then you would very quickly find yourself in hot water (and rightly so). His argument is absurd, and a blatant attempt to defend the indefensible.

          And the scary thing about all of this is how many people will lap it up and then forget about it after the media sweeps it under the rug.

      2. The whole anarchy/famine in the late 80s/early 90s that led to the US deploying Delta and the Rangers to Mogadishu at the request of the UN … there are people who think that happened because the US invaded Somalia. I sh*t you not. One of my classmates back in college was firmly in that camp. Didn’t believe me when I told them the truth. No idea where they got the idea in the first place, though.

          1. Funny how the Left has managed to distort American Noblis Oblige into American’s Fault and Guilt.

            Well, maybe not so funny. Tragic.

          2. ^^^^^
            Is it really willful ignorance? It is what folks on the left have been taught in school all their lives. People say they won’t make the effort to educate themselves. Think about it, where would they go to do that? To the “experts”, the teachers, the NY Times – who parrot exactly what these people have been taught in school! They often *are* educated, it’s just that so much of what they have learned and internalized along the way is wrong.
            Breaking out of that bubble isn’t easy. It generally takes something affecting them personally where they can see the mistakes – and due to Gell Mann amnesia it has to happen more than once.

            So many on the left aren’t stupid or deliberately malicious (although certainly both of those exist across the political spectrum). Just trapped in their cultural bubble.

            1. You do have a point. How would an alien reconstruct human history of the part 2000 years if we just dumped a pile of all the books on history in front of them? How would they know what was true and what was not?

      3. > I mean, they may -think- they’re in Hell when they look out the
        > window, but really its only Minneapolis in winter.
        The distinction between Minneapolis in winter and the 9th circle of Dante’s hell is subtle. That being that Minneapolis is colder and far snowier than the realm of the treacherous.

    2. Remind me again what Israel had to do with what happened in Somalia? From my memory, it was jack and diddly.

      If Omar’s antisemitism is because she blames the Joooos for what happened to her as a child, that would be an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one. It would suggest that she’s too seeped in paranoia and hatred to deal with the facts of what were, let alone the changing things that are. I would not want someone like that on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

      1. It’s simpler than that.

        “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”
        — from the hadith Sahih Muslim, 41:6985

        1. Islam is most likely an heresy of Christianity, and Christianity is an heresy of Judaism. The core teachings of Christianity permit Christians to face the fact that their religion is an heresy of Judaism. Muslims tend to fail to understand why Christians might choose to act to preserve Israel, due to not having enough insight into how Christian teachings shape variations of Christianity. Without that understanding, which Jews often enough also lack, it can be very tempting to assume that American foreign policy towards Israel, and American domestic policy towards Jews, are a function of Jewish influence.

          1. I think is has more to do with Islam not having to rein in it’s extremists for the last sixty some years. When the West was clear tha if Islamic countries wanted to deal with the West as equals, they would have to at least PRETEND to be tolerant, they grew more tolerant. Then the UN school of ‘hammer the reformer s for not ruling like 20th Century Liberals RIGHT NOW, and appease the nutcases because they don’t know any better’ took over, and a few decades later, here we are.

            A lot of Christian sects aren’t a great deal more tolerant of Jews, but they have learned that if they trumpet it they get treated like The Westboro Asshole Church. Or they HAD learned it. Nowadays to many theoretically Christian sects have aligned themselves with the Socialist Left….which is fundamentally antisemitic because it cannot tolerate anything that puts God before the State.

                1. That’s the only case I thought of – the House of Sa’ud doing in their shock-troops in the 1930s-40s.

              1. Whenever the West showed a willingness to impose a cost on the Heads of State that could apply pressure. It’s called Gunboat Diplomacy, and it worked pretty well throughout the 19th century.

      2. Blacks and Muslims are the same set, and Isreal is the root of all Muslim ills. The KKK was probably organized and trained by Mossad advisers. *rolls eyes*

      3. I don’t remember where, but I once read something that might shed a little light on this. Apparently in many Muslim nations, even the well-educated (including those educated in the West) seem to have a view that the West is effectively magic. When you directly confront a Muslim in one of those nations about the issue, he’ll deny it. But by listening carefully to what he’s saying, you can note the belief is still there even if he doesn’t openly acknowledge it.

        This is what we have to deal with in Bro-Fo’s anti-semitism. The fact that the Jews didn’t have an actual presence in Somalia doesn’t matter. Because the Jews are magic, and can do anything.

        It’s superstition and nonsense of the worst sort, and the “Party of Science” is encouraging it.

      4. Remind me again what Israel had to do with what happened in Somalia?

        If Jacob hadn’t stolen her ancestor’s birthright….. Or was it Issac, who knows which version she holds.
        (IIRC, the Koran pings it from Ishmael, Arab tradition to…whatever Jacob’s brother was named, the pottage guy.)

    3. Omar is MN’s latest Big Embarrassment.
      The last one was Franken.
      Kindly do NOT let Klobuchar be the next one.
      Remember: Ventura was the SANE one. Ponder that.

              1. Doubtless – but the state as a whole? You do not select an embarrassment to be your chef law enforcement officer.

                Of course, for years some forty-eight percent of my state (ninety-five percent of the state’s Gaslight Media) was (beyond) embarrassed to have sent Jesse Helms to Washington. The rest of the state simply said, “Whose chances do ya like in the NCAA this year, Duke of Chapel Hill?”

                1. The state as a whole didn’t send Ellison to the AG office, a sufficient number of voters from about a dozen of the 87 counties in the state did. Ellison garnered 49% of the vote.

                2. And then some wag will say, “I favor Wake Forest” and leave the press staring in mingled surprise and pity.

                  [Full disclosure: MomRed bleeds Duke Blue. March is … fraught… around RedQuarters.]

      1. Ellison predated Franken (or should that be pre-dated since I doubt Keith hunted down Al), starting as Rep. in 2007 while ‘Pat’ started in the Senate in ’09.

    4. I wasn’t aware of Israel invading Somalia and oppressing the Muslims. I must have missed that among the collapse of the ruling Barre government and rise of the war lords.

      1. At a rough guess, I suspect it goes something like:

        Israel defiling the sacred soil angered Allah and He is inflicting terrible torments upon His followers until they cleanse the land.

        Or something like that.

  5. ”And she can’t figure out how economics works.”

    Isaac Asimov said that he could never understand economics at all, and he was a pretty smart guy. In spite of this he embraced liberal to ultra-liberal ideas, likely because of early influences of school and New York liberal community environment. So yes, smart people can believe all sorts of erroneous things and for various reasons.

    1. Asimov sold himself short in that regard, IMHO: some of his essays show a decent intuitive grasp of economic concepts, even if the math made his head spin. OTOH, his parents were Russian Jews who emigrated to the US in 1923, probably as a result of the anti-semitic attitudes in Soviet Russia. I read somewhere that they were dedicated Marxists and taught him to be the same. Anybody indoctrinated with Marxism as a child will have problems with economics forever after. One can see traces of Marxism in some of his writings, both fact and fictional.

      1. Perhaps – but can you imagine Asimov’s scorn at a person who professed ignorance of biochemistry then proceeded to advocate eugenics?

        1. I can certainly imagine his scorn at someone who advocated eugenics without knowing anything about genetics. (Then again, I think he would have been scornful of anyone who advocated eugenics regardless of their knowledge level.) But again, one can have an intuitive understanding of genetics without ever having filled in a Punnet square, let alone run a DNA comparison or calculated a gene frequency graph.

          1. I think most people can agree on a level of eugenics where their kids marry and have children with someone who’s healthier and more successful than the average. You do want grandkids who have a lower chance of bad teeth, bad eyesight, developmental disabilities, physical disabilities, or genetic diseases don’t you? Hopefully just as much as you want your children’s families to be happy and stable.

      2. “Dedicated Marxists”

        I noticed in his autobiography “In Memory Yet Green” that he glossed over the fact that many of the Futurians (such as Fred Pohl) we’re communists, even actual party members.

      3. “One can see traces of Marxism in some of his writings, both fact and fictional.”

        Any particular works? I’ve been thinking of rereading books that I haven’t read in decades.

        1. I would suggest the entire premise of the Foundation series — that history is shaped by vast social forces rather than by individuals — is fundamentally Marxist … although his introduction of The Mule might constitute an argument against interest (or more likely, admission that Marxism makes for bad story-telling.)

          1. Also, the intended goal of the Seldon Plan was a Second Empire run by a small intellectual elite that would have needed some form of control over the general populace in order to function. Sounds an awful lot like the Soviet Union (or any other socialist dictatorship), and not at all like the United States or any other democracy.

            1. I’ve thought that the Second Foundation was very much like the Elders Of Zion.

              IE A secret group who attempted to manipulate the larger society in which it existed. 😈

              Of course, we know that the Elders of Zion were fiction… 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿

          2. Social forces as an emergent statistical phenomenon may seem fundamentally Marxist; but that doesn’t make them wrong. Insurance companies make money of them, and police and municipal planners can make accurate, general, predictions more often than not now. That’s one of the reasons why Marxism has been hanging on for as long as it has; it contains just enough truth to cloud the cognitive processes that make people go, “Huh? That doesn’t make any sense.”

        2. According to Asimov, the introduction of the Mule came at the request of John Campbell. Campbell wanted the next Foundation story to be one in the Seldon Plan went wildly off track, and the idea of the psychic Mule was hos Asimov chose to fulfill that request.

          As for nonfiction, most of my Asimov shelf is his F&SF essay collections, which were almost always about hard science – physics, astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, etc. But he did do a series of three or four essays about history, and built at least one around the concept that major historical changes can always be traced back to technology. It made a certain amount of sense the way he told it, but something always seemed a bit “off” about it to me, because he wasn’t just talking about technology; he was talking about how technology affected people, and that’s getting into economics.

          1. I still remember the essay where he claimed that if Venus had a moon we would be much more ecologically minded.

              1. I don’t know about the “more ecologically minded”, but what I remember was the idea that Venus with a visible Moon would have prevent humans from “thinking we/Earth was the center of the universe”.

                  1. Not “agreeing with him” but IIRC his argument was if people could see that Venus had a satellite going around it, then they wouldn’t get the idea that everything in the sky went around Earth.

                    The nature of Venus under its clouds wasn’t relevant to his argument.

                    1. Nod.

                      I “understand” his argument but don’t “agree” with his argument.

          2. “he wasn’t just talking about technology; he was talking about how technology affected people”

            Isn’t that the major part of why people think a SF/F story is good or not? Because it tells of how it affects people? People like the reader?

        3. The short stories in “I, Robot” are set in chronological order. And some of the stories toward the end of the anthology indicate that Earth has shifted to a command economy structure, with computers in charge.

    2. According to Wiki AOC graduated cum laude from Boston University’s College of Arts and Sciences in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics. Even assuming that most of her grades were earned through minority set asides or oral extra credit, she has to have been exposed to the fundamental theories of econ, at least as viewed through a socialist red filter.
      But that’s only the reality created by a white male patriarchy, and I expect she sees no problem in forcing her alternate reality on the great unwashed if only she can reach a position of sufficient power.
      Of course being an impatient little privileged twit she cannot help herself but promote her extreme radical agenda while the paint isn’t even dry on the door of her congressional office.
      And what I suspect will do her in is her own Democratic fellows who cannot help but see her as a double barreled threat. She is making public far too much of their hidden agenda, and being a good little socialist if she ever does achieve that position of power it will be over the bodies of those same fellow travelers.

      1. Boston University is private. IIRC. If her parents were willing to pay, would her teachers be willing to fail her? Of course, public universities have lots of overhead payroll to meet also.

        1. I had seen the information on AOC’s degree before Basically 5 required economics courses. The 300 level ones are really in the International relations world so dollars to donuts there as red as Obama’s diaper. One Micro and one Macro at the 200 (sophmore) level so basically learning to read pretty graphs no math required. And again you can bet the slant is VERY much keynsian/marxist, not any of the more modern stuff. Basically its a degree to go work at some NGO shilling for aid dollars, and she wasn’t even interesting enough to get that job but ended up a third rate bartender. I hereby predict that she’s a 1 term house member and then goes to MSNBC/CNN/ Pravda . Cuomo and DeBlasio (as well as most of the Democrats in the NY legislature) spent a lot of time begging on their kneepads to get AMAZON HQ. Right or not AOC is viewed as having screwed the pooch on that deal intentionally (I think AMAZON realized this was a dumb idea and WANTED a reason to bail). The NY democrat party lives by the Kennedy rule, “Don’t get mad, Get even”. The best she can hope for is to be primaried by some shoe in funded by Democratic party largesse. If it were New Jersey I might expect her to be forming a void in the next big construction project’s foundation before the end of her term…

      2. cum laude. so, maybe a B+ student. not hard in this day and age, i graduated summa cum laude in 2007 and i SLACKED.

      1. Or, like 0bama’s Constitution Knowledge, whether they know it fully is less important than the fact they HATE how it works in reality and want to change everything about it

    3. The trouble with understanding economics is that it requires synthesizing numbers as both objective quantities (when measuring supply) and as subjective qualities (when evaluating demand). I’ve noticed that very few minds tend to be good at understanding both simultaneously and even fewer are good at tracking the interaction of the two.

      1. That’s understanding economics on amscholarly level. Understanding it on a social level is a matter of common sense observation plus some knowledge of history. Progressives are alergic to common sense, observation, AND history because all three show that central planning is almost always a failure.

        1. “You can’t spend money that you don’t have” is pretty non-academic economics. [NOTE: not non-governmental, just non academic.]

          1. I have enough exposure to academic economics to know that there is enough weirdness and ambiguity when it comes to currency storing value to fool someone if they really want to be fooled. Stupidity and intellectual laziness helps also.

  6. … even had her comprehension of science and economics been greater than zero, she would still embrace the Green Nude Heel.

    Those of us familiar with certain types of bright children have experienced their tendency to double-down and back-fill whatever peculiar idea that catches their fancy. The more you challenge the idea the more energy they invest in buttressing their dream castle. Generally the idea is something on the order of dinosaurs with machine guns but occasionally it will reach such heights as the Green Nude Heel (stomping on a human face forever.)

    There is no reasoning with such mania, and no mollifying their fancies. The typical best response is, “Yes dear, I’m sure you think that, now go outside and play in the garden – it’s such a lovely day.”

    1. At work, we had a lot of brilliant engineers, and the concern was for the people who’d fall in love with their idea. We’d try to combat this with design reviews, though when the division head got infected, things didn’t work out that well.

      Shot: “The web is going to keep growing! Let’s go all in!”
      Chaser: Dot-com collapse, circa 2001.
      Hangover: “All your business just got sold to an overseas company.”

      1. Rule one of design engineering – you may have to kill your baby.

        Rule zero is “physics always wins, people always flub”

    2. Even Winston Churchill wasn’t immune from the Good Idea Fairy, and was brilliant enough to defend and advocate for a lot of stupid ideas.
      His staff eventually learned to agree initially, then bring up the problems in the details until he saw the situation was unworkable and changed his mind.

      1. Churchill wasn’t just “not immune” to the Good Idea Fairy, he was peculiarly susceptible to the critter.
        Fortunately during WWII, he had subordinates who would tell him “Can’t be done old boy.”

  7. As this decision came up for discussion here recently:

    Appeals court temporarily delays order voiding North Carolina amendments
    The Associated Press
    RALEIGH — A North Carolina appeals court has set aside temporarily a trial judge’s ruling that voided two constitutional amendments because some district boundaries for lawmakers who placed them on the ballot had been previously declared racial gerrymanders.

    The state Court of Appeals on Wednesday granted Republican lawmakers a temporary delay of the February decision by Wake Superior Court Judge Bryan Collins. He threw out amendments that voters approved in November mandating photo voter identification and lower caps on income tax rates.

    Collins agreed with the NAACP that the 2018 legislature was “illegally constituted” and so lacked authority to propose alterations to the North Carolina Constitution.

    Wednesday’s order says the appeals court will decide next whether to extend stopping enforcement of Collins’ decision while the substance of the case is appealed.

    1. Collins’s ruling is essentially a judicial coup d’etat against the popularly-elected state legislature. The legislature should just tell the courts to go pound sand, they have no authority to overthrow another branch of the state government.

        1. Judge Collins would surely argue that the legislature, as an illegitimately formed body, had no authority to impeach. I wonder in what venue the case would be decided? State supreme court? Wouldn’t they be accused of lacking appropriate disinterest in the outcome?

          Talk about your major Charley Foxtrots! This is one main reason for judicial restraint because no matter how the issue plays out there is damage to all branches of government (even if the governor sits it out, that alone would upset those demanding executive interference, as some surely would.)

          N.B., this assumes the Democrat minority would not muster enough votes to block impeachment.

            1. In Arkansas, the State Police are authorized by the Governor. The Highway Police are authorized by the legislature, who also grant “police” powers to the Department of Game & Fish, the Department of Corrections, state court bailiffs, State College Police, and various Department of Agriculture inspectors and other people you’d be surprised to find are “law enforcement officers.”

              Each of the 75 counties has its own police in the form of their Sheriffs, who get their authority directly from the electorate. About a third of the cities had their own police, who are empowered by whatever type of city government they have. Some counties and cities have dogcatchers, which are now all “police” of some sort.

              We’re ass-deep in “law enforcement” organizations at the state level, and that’s not even counting the Feds and privatized outfits like the Fusion Centers.

          1. Refusal to honor the will of the people, even if by claiming it isn’t, often doesn’t end well for the refusers. Tar and feathering, running out of town on a rail, arson, and assassination have all been historical remedies.

  8. When totalitarians (of whatever stripe) promise things which obviously cannot be delivered in order to gain power — that’s good strategy, not stupidity.

    If a robber spins some yarn to con his way in to your house and get the door closed before he shows his gun — that’s good strategy, not stupidity.

    In both cases, the only “stupidity” involved is in believing their promises.

    1. Of course what can be good short term strategy can and often does have terrible long term results.
      Politicians in Illinois (other states as well I’m sure, but I was born there so keep closer track) purchased their seats through the promise of lavish pension plans for public sector union workers. The result is a state so deeply in debt that they cannot afford to pay the winners of the state run lottery. And all those lavish pension funds hold a bare fraction, some as low as 30-40%, of what will be needed as those employees retire.
      The state’s solution is the same as ever was, their income tax rate is twice what it was in 1984 when I left, and a relative with a house roughly equivalent in value to mine pays ten times what I do in property tax.
      The outcome is a mass exodus from Illinois of all those able to do so. And much the same is happening in other states, California, and New York to name just two.

      1. a state so deeply in debt that they cannot afford to pay the winners of the state run lottery

        This exposes a deeply rooted corruption, as the income for the lottery ought be going into escrow accounts, first to fund the payout, second to fund the operation of the lottery and only finally getting sucked into the black hole that is the state’s political culture. That they failed to ensure such basic precautions is quite revelatory.

        IIRC, the lottery payout problem initiated when a state budget impasse blocked the appropriation of those funds, but as I try my best to not follow Illinois politics, I have surely missed any subsequent develoopments.

        1. For those who point out Trump managed to lose money owning/running a casino, the reply is: Oh, just like Illinois? Except that is unfair. Illinois has not recovered and shows no signs of the possibility. For those in IL, I suggest a backup system – back up as far as you can, OUT of Illinois. But leave IL policies behind.

          * Ox shake head. Humans supposed to be smart.

          1. Smart humans… That’s their story, and they’re sticking to it. But it’s lies upon lies upon lies, alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the way downnnnnnnnnnnn.

          2. I left in 1974, when things were allegedly under control, and only one ex-governor had been convicted for corruption. (OTOH, the then current governor was heading down that path. Being Gov in Illinois isn’t a guarantee to spend time at Club Fed, but I wouldn’t bet against it.)

            Unfortunately, my career took me to California, where (to my shame), I voted for a young upstart named Jerry Brown for governor.

            I learned better. I don’t think he did, and the Illinois dad-gum-gummint people certainly haven’t. Though, I did hear of a bill to make Chicago secede from the rest of the state. This is getting a lot of enthusiasm from the non-Chicago portions of the state. Sounds like it wasn’t a Chicago idea. VBEG.

            1. Oh hell no. Downstate Illinois, which is just about everything outside Cook County or Springfield is rural farming conservative midwestern folks.
              But for many years they have been bled dry by the pustulating boil on their collective neck otherwise known as the Chicago Machine.
              Growing up downstate we drove on gravel roads so Chicago could build yet another expressway. We met in WWII era quonset huts while Chicago built another lavish public building.
              Downstate would love to have Chicago removed from their aching backs, but like any other bloodsucking leach it just refuses to let go.

          3. At least a casino is tightly regulated in its payouts. I think Vegas slot machines are required to have a .98 EV ( i.e. for every dollar put in over an infinite amount of time 0.98 dollars are paid out). When Connecticut first had a lottery when I was in junior high it was a simple pick 3 kind of game. That is choose a number 000 to 999 and once a week a random number was drawn . The simplest form was an exact payout, if you matched all three numbers and bet $1 that payed $500. Except even a 7th grader I could tell this was a massive rip off, Odds were 1000 to 1 payout 500 to 1. Going back to my expectation value that’s .5 . And for most State Lotteries that’s quite generous. So losing money on a state lottery is VERY impressive, only a government could screw up that badly.

            1. You misunderstand. The Illinois lottery itself is a cash cow. The problem is that they set it up so that the lottery income goes directly into the general fund, earmarked for education to be sure, but the lottery payouts over a certain amount ($500 I believe, but could be mistaken) are checks issued from that same general fund. And Illinois has several times been so deeply in arrears on bill payments that legally they were prohibited from cutting those winnings checks, instead being forced to issue promissory notes.
              Of course the lottery should have been set up as a completely separate entity, but that would have meant far more autonomy than grasping Illinois politicians were comfortable with.

        2. By rights, they need to seize 100% of the assets of everyone in the decision making hierarchy of the lottery, up through the entire legislative and executive branches that regulated it, including every member of their House and Senate, in addition to the governor who signed the bills.

  9. Reblogged this on The Writer in Black and commented:
    Save myself some time today.

    A good many years ago (early 90’s) I was on an online service known as GEnie (run by General Electric, thus the capitalization). In the “Science Fiction Roundtables” another author by the name of Daffyd ab Hugh (who at the time identified as libertarian and clued me in on differences within libertarianism such as minarchist and anarchist). I’ve long since lost track of him and have no idea what directions he’s gone since. That said, he formulated the following:

    “In politics do not attribute to stupidity what can be explained by malice. The truly powerful are rarely stupid.”

    Even in the case where the public face is stupid, look to the malice of said public face’s handlers.

    Or to paraphrase an expression:

    Once is ignorance. Twice is stupidity. Three times is malice aforethought.

    1. The truly powerful are rarely stupid.

      Not sure I concur there. I politics there is much power to be gained by being stupid and mining the stupidity of others. There is a distinction to be made between “cunning” and “smart” and in politics the former often overwhelms the latter.

      Alternate formulation:
      Once is ignorance. Twice is stupidity. Three times is the product of positive reinforcement.

      1. Not sure I concur there. I politics there is much power to be gained by being stupid and mining the stupidity of others.

        Deliberately playing to the stupidity of others is not something I’d call “stupid.” There’s a difference between acting stupid in order to achieve a desired end and being stupid which usually fails at that goal.

        Three times is the product of positive reinforcement.

        IOW, learning what achieves the desired goal (which is rarely the stated goal) and applying it. Again, hardly what I’d call stupid.

    2. Then again, some folks are pretty smart at the political game, and really really stupid at everything else.
      A lot of generals in most armies when wars begin, for instance. Brilliant at kissing up and getting promoted, lousy at actually leading armies.

  10. Let’s avoid untested assumptions. Has anybody actually seen either of Sarah’s subjects walking and chewing gum simultaneously?

    1. Speaking as someone who is perfectly capable of tripping over a flat carpet in his bare feet and walking groin-first into an unobserved fire hydrant in broad daylight, I must note that clumsiness and stupidity are not necessarily correlated.

      1. Aye. Unobservant and unco-ordinated are hardly signs of lack of intellect. Though they are a bit jarring.

        Of course, ox clumsy as ox. So might have some bias.

      1. Ox bolting?

        Runs rapidly in a different direction. Sarah’s carp catapult is too accurate & adjusts quickly to catch her target.

        FWIW … very nice … still don’t intend to the collateral damage. Good luck …

        1. And walks around in disguise as a Mormon male (with a great rack). (According to some comments I’ve read.)(I personally wouldn’t know.)

  11. Malice leads people to do stupid, self-defeating things. This is why we do not like it when we get the Red Tunnel in a gunfight. That means you are no longer paying attention, your focus is on killing that guy.

    The correct stance is dispassionate. That way you can make intelligent, reasoned decisions that have the results you want.

    Nobody is asking “What kind of country do I want to live in, and how do I get there from here?” The left is KIIIIIIILLLLLL!!!! and the Right is “What the fuck is wrong with you?!” Neither one of those places is getting any work done.

    In one of my books there’s demons. How the demons work is they hate everything. They hate you, me, each other. They want you to suffer. One of the ways they make you suffer is by getting you to hate them. If they make you hate them enough, you end up being a demon too.

    How do you fight something that wins if you hate it?

    By being a janitor. Janitors clean up dirt. They don’t HATE the dirt, they just clean it. They are efficient, thorough and diligent, not hate-filled. See dirt, clean dirt.

    Occasional-Cortex, this is a -kid-. A girl of 25. She doesn’t know shit. Can’t possibly know. Too young.You can see her hating the old bitches in her party, thinking the wisdom of age is fear. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t HATE the way OC does. Hers is more an old, frigid despising of people not of her class. She knows enough to smile and lie. Occasional-Cortex rages and tells the truth about what she’s doing, always a mistake for Lefties.

    1. The advantage of being Ancient (it’s a relative thing, yes) is that you’ve seen this [excreta] before. It’s just the same old [excreta] even if phrased in some allegedly new way.

      I like the janitor-dirt analogy.

      1. It probably isn’t original to me, I think it’s in the Bhagavad- Gita or something similar. I did make up the janitor thing, though its likely somebody else has made it up too.

    2. Easier to live with someone saying, “What the f is wrong with you?” than it is with people who are going, “Kill You!!!!!”

      1. That would be the core of what makes them stupid. Hate gets you more hate. Sounds very fortune cookie, but when you hate people they hate you back. That means you don’t get what you want, ever, by hating others.

        That’s like a basic principle of life, on the 2+2=4 level. So many idiots just can’t seem to get it.

        1. Well, you can hate all you want, but acting childish about it gets you nowhere. I have hated plenty of people and was still able to get things done. Because, if you twist their heads off like they deserve, you get all sorts of complications.
          And a mess.

    3. I dunno, judging from the f***ups so far, she may end up going full ragebait before this is over.

      1. These mistakes of hers so far are all the kinds of screw-ups a kid makes when she has a cheering section boosting her signal. She doesn’t realize how fast a cheering section will dissipate, its the first time she’s ever had one.

        If we went waaaaaay back to the 1850s when Nancy Pelosi was 25, we might see her making the same type of mistakes. But not now, because Pelosi has seen her own support vanish many times over the years.

        People are fickle. As a kid you don’t really get that. You think “This Time Will Be Different!” But it won’t. Because humans are human, and they do not change.

  12. As stupid as Hillary Clinton when she decided that calling us “deplorables” would make us vote for her. Who even thinks like that?

    Hard to blame her too much. Obama managed to win by calling those who disagreed with him “bitter clingers.” She just didn’t get that she doesn’t have the charisma required to insult people to their faces, then get them to say, “Thank you, Ma’am, may we have another?”

    1. That and she was counting on [pun intended] the coastal elites and Yellow Dog Democrats to carry the day. Surprise.

    2. She’s also a longterm resident of the Leftist Bubble, carefully insulated and protected against all forms of possible badthink.
      In the bubble, the slightest hint one is not in lockstep with the current approved ideas usually leads to apologies and hurry to conform.
      She had no idea that doesn’t work on the normies.

      1. And for whatever reason feared she was going to win by a minority of votes, so worked on GOTV in NYC and Chicago, ignoring Michigan and Wisconsin to make sure she won “in a landslide” or something they could point at as such.

  13. Given the heavy influence of Marxist theory in economics, it seems entirely possible to graduate summa cum laude without being able to read a balance sheet or an income statement. One season running a newspaper route, buying and delivering newspapers and collecting from customers, would have probably given AOC a better understanding of economic reality than she got in years of college studies.

    1. One season running a newspaper route, … would have probably given AOC a better understanding of economic reality than she got in years of college studies.

      Because nobody’s quoted it in a while.

      1. Fantastic scene and funny movie. Classic Rodney.

        One of my favorite Rodney bits (not in the movie) is where he talks about how he moved to a new neighborhood. He asked the cop on the corner, how long to the subway station. The cop answered, “I don’t know, nobody’s ever gotten there.”

        1. The difference between waitressing and bar-tending is that the latter gets to extort “commissions” from the former.

  14. FWIW, I appropriated your principle and added it to an internal corporate document discussing Finagle’s General Law of Dynamic Negatives, corollaries, and related concepts. I added yours as a corollary to Hanlon’s Razor and called it “Hoyt’s Corollary.”

  15. Gonna go Mormon theology here:

    Marxism, being after the order of Lucifer’s alternate plan of happiness (i.e., surrender your agency to the central authority and he promises a good outcome . . . for him), cannot help but cultivate malice and spite in those who prosper by it.


    1. I call her the Lucy Riccardo of politics. She’s pretty, charismatic to her fans … and has a million stupid and ill-thought-out plans, which will all inevitably come to grief, and she will cry … and someone will come to rescue her, and her legions of fans will be charmed and forgive.

    2. Her ideas would be a disaster for this country, but clearly she’s smart enough to know what to say to get her constituents to elect her.

        1. Democrat: Check
          Woman: Check
          Hispanic: Check
          Young: Check
          Reasonably Telegenic: Check
          Not an old, white, male, 15-term incumbent: Check

          We’ve got a Winnah!

  16. But if Occasional-Cortex actually *knew* any Ricardo, that would be such an improvement …. oh … wrong Ricardo.

  17. New Healthcare Program

    You are receiving this message because you have expressed interest in the expanded healthcare availability concept (“Medicare for all”).

    We are pleased to announce that we have finalized details on the Standardized Healthcare Availability Measure (SHAM). While it is true there were some shortcomings in an earlier iteration of this program, we can assure you that this idea is a complete SHAM.

    To address limitations in availability, new and local panels will be formed by the Division for Evaluation of Actuarial Table Heuristics (DEATH).

    Note to broadcast media: this term is pronounced “DEETH”.

    The DEATH panels will implement distribution of healthcare procedures and pharmaceutical/supply stocks via the Revised Estimated Allocation of Provided Existing Resources (REAPER) protocol.

    Many naysayers have tried to argue against these new ideals, claiming we are overreaching. But rest assured, with the DEATH panels serving the REAPER, we can assure that all Americans are taken in by this SHAM.

    [Poe notification:

    Well…I can’t PROVE this is what they want.


    1. Note to the DEATH committee.

      Strongly suggest you silence H for Heuristics part of your name. That way the news media will pronounce it “DEET”; which will automatically get the viewers to associate the division with bug repellant. Since everyone knows bug repellant is a good thing, they’ll associate the Division with good things also.

  18. Why shouldn’t we hate these vile traitors? The whole idea that we shouldn’t respond violently to these DEMONS who are eating our lunch was inserted cunningly into the GOP script by those who now call themselves NeverTrumpers, and who were never anything but moles for the Left in the first place.

    (Speaking of which, Sarah, I remember how up you were on Mitt Romney. How does that seem now? I realize that you probably shared a church with him…yes, I can figure out from the clues you left in Darkship Renegades. Zenobia = queen of Palmyra = Palmyra, NY, where the LDS originated…but the fact was that Romney was a pretty poor Mormon who supported taxpayer funding of abortions).

    Truth be told, every time one of these monsters attacks one of us it strengthens their support and weakens ours. People see these attacks and want to be in the alpha group that’s doing the attacks. The reason that Trump won was that his supporters beat the fuck out of that disruptor in Reno. Bush similarly won in 2004 because the Al Pieda disruptors were beat up at that Ann Coulter speech. When you beat someone, people love you.

    And yes, I said “fuck.” You should say it more often. Rage doesn’t eat you up inside, except when you don’t act on it. We have the military on our side. We have heavily armed rednecks on our side. WTF, we even have the Hell’s Angels on our side. On their side, they have a bunch of prancing fairies. We could EASILY wipe them out, if we would get off the Net and onto the streets.

    Let’s do it. Let’s give them the civil war they say they want. I am literally drooling at the thought of what I’ll do to these worms.

    1. Why shouldn’t we hate these vile traitors?

      Because hate is stupid.

      It’s destructive, shutting off growth; if channeled effectively, it causes those you hate to never repair themselves.

      It’s a sin for a reason.

      Quit hating and start actually doing something productive.

        1. Notice the only part worth answering for me was the objectively sinful urging.

          Good heavens, the guy thinks cursing– using the most over used obscenity in the modern era– is daring or something.

    2. Holly H*ll man. No, I don’t share a church with Romney, not that it’s any of your business. For the record, I’m ALSO not male. Or, according to the state department, white.
      That great reference you tracked down? In your head. Zenobia was the reference to “Daughter of the gods.” (rolls eyes.) As the book said.
      Yes, I have a religion. I also have another religion I’m very sympathetic to. Neither are Mormonism.
      Romney lost me when he refused to do anything about the corruption coming in in the poll I watched.
      As for I was really up on Romney…
      Speaking of traitors and infiltrators… Do you think TRULY THINK I should have been up on Obama? Because in a two party system that was the alternative.
      I WANTED OBAMA GONE. I’d have said a good word about Satan, if he were the instrument to remove someone who hated us from power.
      Now, explain yourself. Did you fail to vote for Romney because he wasn’t pure enough for you?
      Then what? How does this make you better than Never Trumpers?

        1. I hadn’t. I was trying to finish setting up the actual cover (not render) computer and trying to figure out what the fonts were I lost (long story.)

            1. Not your fault the computer I was assembling the covers on crashed and took my fonts with it. (Weirdly, it was a video card, but we thought it was my os, so we reinstalled.)

        2. I spent the evening clearing a couple of Danger Man episodes from the DVR (Patrick McGoohan series that showed in America as Secret Agent – currently running weekends on CHARGE! TV) then cleaning the dishwasher filter … and contacting Whirlpool to ask about a loose part found in the process. Who knew the worst crud I’d deal with would have been here?

      1. No, I voted for Romney. It’s just that you compared him favorably to Trump, right after the 2016 election, when in reality Trump was a far better man. Not a perfect man by any means, but better than the mole the Left put in in 2012.

        1. I don’t remember doing that. I rather doubt I did, in fact. But I was terrified of Trump right after the election, even though I voted for him. We just didn’t know if he was going to flip full democrat. Hell, we still don’t know, but it seems unlikely.
          We voted for him SOLELY because he loved this country. Period.
          I think you’re not thinking of this properly. Yes, I KNOW what Ace thinks. And I kind of respect it, but he’s not lived most of his life in lefty circles, which arguably DC is.
          I don’t think Romney is a traitor, so much, as one of the old style republicans. I’ve talked about it before I have no idea how old you are, but in the seventies everyone — even I — assumed planned economy statists would win. The difference was some of us thought it would be hell on Earth and were determined to fight it to the end. Others thought they could make it easier for people if they worked to delay it/ease us into it, even though they thought it would be terrible. They just thought it was inevitable.
          Consider Mormonism comes with a baked in assumption that evil will triumph for a while (and then good wins) as do a lot of other Catholic faiths.
          I think Romney is an agreeable, shallow man, intellectually unprepared for the perfidy of the left, and who never revised the assumptions of his youth. (He’s older than I.) He thinks he’s doing the best he can to “ease” things by “working with the other side.”
          And never, ever, ever write these people off. Sure, rebuke them, and point out their errors, but NEVER WRITE THEM OFF.
          Keep in mind that Lindsey Graham is now at least half the time to the right of Trump. Sometimes people wake up.

      2. Heck, I dragged myself to the polls to vote for McCain AND Romney. And sent money. Despite the fact that McCain’s treatment of Sarah Palin was despicable. And should have earned him “Pistols for two, coffee for one.”

        1. Me too.
          I did tell you that in McCain’s own phone campaign room, where I was volunteering, (and dragged husband) a chant went up every half hour or so “Let’s win this for Sarah and what’s his name.” Followed by “Drag his skanky ass over the finish line. Drag, drag, drag.” Lord, we tried. Because the alternative was worse.

    3. As for a civil war, dear sir, you have NO idea. You literally understand what it would be like as much as you understand my religious proclivities. (Which, btw, are not a secret. I suspect if it weren’t so late there would be some commenters howling with laughter, already.)

      1. Actually, some of us are more shocked by the other nonsense to laugh about this “person” changing your religion. 😉

        1. no. The other stuff is weird enough, but if I’m putting crypto Mormon messages in my books, it’s … well, it’s so crypto I didn’t know it. 😀

    4. Fuck. Poe? Honestly! Is this someone trying to chum the water, playing stalking horse for the woke to eat up?

      If not, honest answer… anger does eat us up inside, expressed or unexpressed. Actual and real studies have been done that prove that expressing anger fans flames, it doesn’t douse them. Never has. The best way to remain angry is to express or act on that anger.

      Anger is sin, and like so many sins, it’s sin against our own bodies.

        1. Nobody does, but I would hope it would be like the African wars of the 1990s, where the one group would come into a town of people they hated and massacre everyone there.

          1. Oh, dear Lord.
            No. First, that’s insane. We’re not Africa. We’re not TRIBES.
            I.e. you might not be able to tell them apart on sight, but the locals CAN. Africa was just “Genocide is part of the natural condition of man.” (Which btw doesn’t make it right or just.)
            HERE? On ideological grounds? As you proved, you think even me some kind of enemy. Also, malice MAKES you stupid. Who are you going to kill? If you include nice people who believe what they see on TV, you’re going to include most of the population. “People they hated”? Dear Lord.
            The other side gets to say something, and not all of them hate guns. And they HATE US.
            What in actual living hell is wrong with you?
            How far have you let yourself go?
            I was reading about the holocaust recently, where the Nazis let themselves go so far, they were feeding camp prisoners old clothes and pulp paper to see if humans could survive on that. (Weirdly about 15% of people can. Not well, but they can.)
            They had gone so far, they were thinking of PEOPLE as mice.
            Have you gone that far? Do you realize how evil that is?
            There are people on the left who deserve death. On the right too, though fewer, because they haven’t had that much power these last 100 years. Not in the US.
            BUT their sins are HUMAN. They have othered other people and made them into objects, which is the oldest sin of mankind.
            And you’re doing the same.
            Who would you shoot? People who’ve been lied to in school their whole short lives? Are you going to exterminate school children? One of my kids friends was hard left till his first year in college, when he suddenly read outside the curriculum and realized he’d been lied to all his life.
            And when you’re done shooting 50% of the population, (including all the soft left who’ve been taught to hate anything non-marxist) what do you do?
            You do realize at that point your group starts shooting the most left of their number. Because they’ll be the “left” and the “enemy” then.
            OR everyone else is horrified and you initiated something like Chekoslovakia that will burn for generations.
            I don’t know how old you are. If you’re young, I advise reading on the French revolution. And the Nazi atrocities. The left took from it “don’t be racist” but that wasn’t the sin of the nazis. The sin of the nazis was the old sin of “tribe” and “not tribe.”
            If you consider this a good thing, you need to walk back.
            And I agree with Pam. Get counseling now.
            Or, if you don’t trust counselors, read Peterson, 12 rules.
            It is you that you’re already destroying. Do you want to look in the mirror and behold the face of evil? Because you’re already 90% of the way there.

            1. I have argued before that revolution at this time would not be to establish liberty but to simply choose among various tyrants. This is supported by the number of people when I ask “and then what” who give answers that can be summed up as the only problem with Robespierre and The Terror is that they didn’t go far enough.

              Too many entirely too willing to wallow in lakes of blood with no end point in sight.

              Africa? That’s his model? Because that’s worked out so well over there.[/sarc]

              1. Ken seems to be proof that it is possible to type while your arms are strapped behind your back, probably by smashing your nose into the keyboard repeatedly.

                I will note, for the second time, he is demonstrating how sufficient malice makes one stupid. Adhering to a policy which will horrify your allies and justify any steps taken by your enemies is strategically unsound. Advocating tactics which would make Patricio Carrera say, “Whoa, dude! Calm down!” is dumb beyond doubt.

            2. I don’t think it is malice making the stupidity here. I’m reading it as ingrained stupidity contributing to (and part of the cause of) malice.

              1. and yet he might be very smart. But he let hatred drive, and it makes you DUMB. You want to destroy the other side so much, you stop viewing them as humans and you think of them as… NPCs who won’t defend themselves and whom “everyone hates.”

                    1. Music guy Moby made a statement saying that to best make the TEA Party people, and well every collection of people like us, here, look like the racists the leftoids claimed, to go to TEA Party and Republican events and act like a racist, radical militant, to paint the real people as what they were trying to claim. False flag “rightwing” nutcases were called Moby in his “honor”
                      As shown most of the time, A leftoid has no clue what those on the right want or think and does a horrid job trying to act like one on any way. so they were easy to find and people had “Impostor” and “Moby” signs they’d use to point these lackeys out. Usually they ran off as soon as someone pointed them out. Hopefully (in their hopes) just after their picture was taken but without any signs in view, to tar the crowds as racist radicals etc. We all know Nazi SS uniformed people would prefer low taxes and limited Gov’t, right? So if none were in the crowds, they HAD to be manufactured.

                    2. The left TRULY has no clue who we are or what we want. Not exactly their fault, as collusion between the information/education/entertainment industrial complex has completely obscured the fact that liberty is even an option, but yeah. They have no clue.
                      And they’re remarkably resistant to correction. For instance, during SP the fact that two of the principals were Latin and three were women made no dent in their minds. They just declared us all Mormon males and carried on.

                    3. To understand us they would have to understand the concept “Liberty.”

                      Further, by inhabiting a reality in which ideas are developed thought-leaders and are deployed by authentic representatives of castes identity groups they are incapable of grasping the principle of independent thought, which makes them a) blind to free market functioning b) susceptible to astroturf conspiracy theories.

                    4. sounded like he was sorta going off that with the Mormon BS. the Kickers said you were a White Moroman Male, so something there MUST be correct!

                    5. The only place his email address is given is in the Larry Niven blog, and there the email is associated with “Roy Truesdale”, a Niven character:

                      It seems a little odd for someone connected to SF to come here spouting revolution and fire. Also this address is from a resort in Las Vegas, which makes me wonder if a previously blocked troll found a way in.

                      The weird thing is I didn’t have to approve him, so he had a previous account here.

                      WordPress removed the ability to search comments, so I can’t do it.

                      His IP is:

                    6. The left TRULY has no clue who we are or what we want.

                      This is what I saw a lot from Trump during the campaign. He sounded less like a conservative and more like a leftist caricature of a conservative. And I really think it’s the TDS from the Left that’s spared us that. Where they could have been all “let’s make a deal” they went “war to the knife.”

                    7. Trump would have been a sucker for the Progressive’s infrastructure boondoggles projects, although his development experience might have made him well aware of their gross overspending. Instead, as you observe, they went full TDS and have driven him into conservatism. In their attacks they have made him what they most feared.

                      They no longer have anything they can offer him and have rendered him largely invulnerable to their usual methods of attack.

                      Karma is sweet.

                    8. Look at what their derangement has already cost them in exposure of their plumbing of the Gaslight Media water-carriers, politicized government agencies, corrupt bureaucrats, black box campaign law firms laundering campaign donations to fund opposition research and smears, and the functions of Fusion GPS and its agents. They’ve pulled away the curtain and revealed not only the Wizard manipulating the levers but the entire construct of their mirage casting.

                      WHAT BRUCE OHR SAID
                      “It came up several times in the transcript that Christopher — that’s ‘Chris’ to his good buddy Bruce — was not only feeding opposition research to the FBI, he was being paid for it as an official source. Think of the gall. Simpson is not only getting paid by HRC and the DNC to produce this crap, but he’s triple dipping by getting the FBI to pay for it too. It suggests that the FBI wasn’t very savvy. Do they pay anybody who comes along with “information”?

                      And then there is the crazy fact that the first person in DoJ land that Ohr took the Steele material to was McCabe, who brought in not just Strzok and Page, but Zainab Ahmad and Andrew Weissmann too (who would soon be on the Mueller team. Funny, but I checked McCabe’s book on Google Books and could find no reference to Bruce Ohr at all…Maybe I’m just not looking hard enough.”

                    9. Part of the reason many of us were leery of Trump were his love of Kelo, and big gov’t over all. Though, to be honest, Trump was more of a Dane style socialist, than the typical leftoid (you can’t get taxes from folks without businesses and jobs, so encourage the economy to pay for your welfare etc.), and ironically, I think you are right, The leftoids coulda got close to Danish or Norwegian style social gov’t programs if they hadn’t gone full rutabaga. Trump is the type to go all in, out of spite, just to annoy those attacking him.
                      Like Insty has often said, All they had to do was not act crazy . . .
                      They could possibly got both houses, and gotten stuff from Trump otherwise.

    5. “I realize that you probably shared a church with him…yes, I can figure out from the clues you left in Darkship Renegades. Zenobia = queen of Palmyra = Palmyra, NY, where the LDS originated”

      Logical leaps like this should qualify you for the Olympics.

      Just saying.

    6. Why shouldn’t we hate these vile traitors?

      “If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
      Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
      Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
      And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:”

      The whole idea that we shouldn’t respond violently to these DEMONS who are eating our lunch was inserted cunningly into the GOP script by those who now call themselves NeverTrumpers, and who were never anything but moles for the Left in the first place.

      My my my my my my, what a mess of bumbleminded horseshit.

      To start with, de-humanizing the enemy is a step you do not want to take, that you cannot take without becoming the evil you claim you are fighting.

      Not responding violently is not something that was “cunningly inserted” into anything by anybody, it is a basic tenet of civil society. Violence is not a first resort, it is a last resort, unless you want to give up on civilization all together.

      To claim that the NeverTrumpers were never anything but moles for the left is an even more insidious form of dehumanization. You are saying that exactly none of them has any human agency, that the position is impossible to hold honestly and openly.

      This, sir, is also unacceptable in civil society. One may disagree, and even hold that an idea or position is destructive, but to impugn the characters of one’s opponents sight unseen, based solely on their position on some political issue, is fallacious and dishonest.

      …yes, I can figure out from the clues you left in Darkship Renegades. Zenobia = queen of Palmyra = Palmyra, NY, where the LDS originated…

      What style tin-foil hat do you own? A beanie? A toque? A trilby? A homburg? Inquiring minds want to know!

      Truth be told, every time one of these monsters attacks one of us it strengthens their support and weakens ours. People see these attacks and want to be in the alpha group that’s doing the attacks. The reason that Trump won was that his supporters beat the fuck out of that disruptor in Reno. Bush similarly won in 2004 because the Al Pieda disruptors were beat up at that Ann Coulter speech. When you beat someone, people love you.

      “People do this!” “People are excited!” “People love my new thing!”

      Any time you have to resort to telling anyone what “people” do or think or feel, you are engaging in impression management rather than argumentation. Like a politician.

      And yes, I said “fuck.” You should say it more often.

      Who the fuck asked for your advice? Nobody gives a fuck what you think.

      Rage doesn’t eat you up inside, except when you don’t act on it.

      Asserted, but unsupported.

      We have the military on our side. We have heavily armed rednecks on our side. WTF, we even have the Hell’s Angels on our side. On their side, they have a bunch of prancing fairies. We could EASILY wipe them out, if we would get off the Net and onto the streets.

      Robespierre thought he had everybody on his side, too. It worked out real well for him, too.

      Let’s do it. Let’s give them the civil war they say they want. I am literally drooling at the thought of what I’ll do to these worms.

      And again, what makes you think the angry violent mob will not turn on you, with just as much drool in their mouths for you?

      “Ken” means to understand. You do not to seem a very deep understanding of much of anything at all.

      1. Good LORD, I didn’t even see “Trump won because his supporters beat people,” because my brain had frozen on the other stupid and particularly the bizarre.
        I kind of seized over the religion thing, because honestly — what? I think that other than crazy lefties EVERYONE knows I’m not actually Mormon.
        Though I’m sure if someone goes through my books manufacturing clues, they’ll also find proof I’m a vegan and possibly a pastafarian….
        No, they didn’t, actually. They pushed/escorted him out. That was it. NO ROUGHING UP happened. That was just the stupid press.
        Also, if beating people is what gets you support, antifa must be immensely popular.
        What planet is Ken from, precisely?
        Oh, and I’m 99.9% sure I never lamented that Trump wasn’t Romney after the 16 elections. I was too shocked (in a good way) to do anything that crazy. And before the primaries were decided I was a Cruz girl.
        So, I suspect that whatever “lamenting” I did must be of the same order as my crypto Mormonism. So crypto even I don’t know about it.

            1. Not a moby…I believe the things I say. In a sense you could claim I am a troll, since I do like to provoke reactions in people.

              (Aside: I’m sure that last sentence will from here on out be referenced out of context, with no mention of what comes afterward).

              However, I do not want a reaction solely out of a perverse desire to upset people. I want to shock people into moving the Overton window in my direction. I WANT people to react violently to the Left’s absolute evil. I WANT to dehumanize them, so that people on our side won’t always act like cowardly shrinking violets. More than anything, I want violence by the Right to be so common that I myself can do it and have little chance of getting into trouble.

              I want to be able to walk up to a woman and say, “My side was responsible for the Berkeley massacre of 2019. Yes, we are the bad boys.” And I can hear your shocked gasps…but the Leftists do this all the time, and it works.

              Think of how you look when you endlessly jaw-jaw-jaw about the philosophy of your politics, while the other side is killing people for theirs.

              Think of how you look when you say, “I weep for my country.” Well, if you’re weeping for your country, WHY THE HELL DIDN’T YOU FIGHT AND, YES, KILL FOR IT?

              Insert your insults below.

              1. because in doing what you’re saying to do, we’d become AntiFa…and its not okay because it is ‘on our side’.

              2. Pish-tosh, Ken — you are incapable of being insulted. That would require qualities you manifestly lack.

                Your efforts will move the Overton Window in the direction opposite you desire and repel far more people than you compel. You’re putting the Nazi n right-wing and might as well be a never-Trumper for all the effect you have.

              3. the fact you believe the things you say is frankly horrifying.
                I don’t know if it’s lack of knowledge or just some kind of strange mind twist or if you’re just REALLY bad online, but you come across as borderline psychotic, and frankly not coherent at all.

                1. starting to think more on Kenny.
                  Moron, certainly, malice towards us, certainly, Moby, maybe. But for sure and certain there is little intelligence going on there. Psychosis as well.

                  1. Psychosis for sure.
                    To me the most disturbing thing is the bizarre tea-leaf reading about the election, as well as “accusing” me of still wanting Romney after the election. (Honestly, I didn’t give Romney a thought until he surfaced to make an ass of himself.)
                    That worries me because there are certain hallmarks of obsession there.
                    Honestly, if he wrote more coherently I’d suspect him of being Chlamydia.

                    1. Well, we did want Romney . . . because HE WASN’T 0BAMA. We wanted McCain BECAUSE HE WASN’T 0BAMA. We supported Trump not because we loved him (and yeah, a simple search in the run-up shows very few if any of us were Trump from day one, many were “Trust him as far as we can throw his Tower” and nearly none were “I Wish Romney would run again” (and I say nearly none, because I remember none, but someone may have thought that).
                      btw, folks not yelling at Sarah, yelling to make clear to the thick skulls
                      Pretty bad when he makes less sense than Clamtrap

                    2. Yep.
                      I think most here were Cruz, with a smattering of Rand Paul and maybe a bit of “I wish so and so had run.”
                      I was never Trump until it became obvious the strategy led to Always Hillary and also that most of the bad things I “knew” about Trump came from the media, which you can’t trust. So… knowing he was probably a dem, but less lefty than Hillary, I voted for him and was relieved he won.
                      I honestly don’t remember ANY after-election “I wish it was so and so” so the fact Moby is convinced there was one is another of those things.
                      I remember being wary. But I’m always wary after elections.

                    3. A whole lot of us were “I gotta pick from this lot? Really?”, and most of those went for Cruz. To be honest, i wasn’t very happy with anyone even hinted at running, nor did I have much of a Wish list.
                      Wary of Trump was just wise, because we knew he was a former Clinton “Friend” (who, really is a true friend of theirs?) and had a long line of stupid, leftiod statements, and ev en more than a few during the campaign (like his sis for SCOTUS) I knew we certainly couldn’t trust the press, because even as a leftoid regular in NYC society, Trump had a very antagonistic relationship with the press. I had second hand dealings with him in the 90’s, and well, knew a lot of that I’m basically a Dem Trump of the past, and seen very little to convince me he was sincere. Later I leanred of how mad he was at Hillary and 0bama for the slights at the Press Dinner, and then was more convinced. I now rely on his Ego being big enough to have him keep his word to undo the 0bama legacy and stick it too him.

                    4. Trump at least had the advantage that he didn’t hate the United States and everything it stands for.

              4. So…in other words, you want to use politics as an excuse to act out your violent fantasies, just like Antifa.
                I knew that, after the 2nd ACW, we’d have to hold war crimes trials for us and the leftists. I just didn’t know that people would be stupid enough to talk about it beforehand.

              5. In a sense you could claim I am a troll, since I do like to provoke reactions in people.

                You’re not a troll, just a run of the mill blowhard and asshole. Sorry, cupcake, the only thing speshul about you is how far up your own ass you have gotten.

                I want to shock people into moving the Overton window in my direction.

                Which means you know that you have no arguments or facts on your side. “Reason takes too looooooooong,” he whined, “it’s so much easier to just make people angry, and then they’ll some-crazy-how do what I want them to do!”

                This is moronic. But it’s your position, and you are at least not pretending that it isn’t.

                I WANT people to react violently to the Left’s absolute evil.

                Yes, yes, you’re a self-righteous demagogue, we get it already. Disagreement with you is absolute evil. This is always a position that leads to sweetness, light, and prosperity for all.

                Well, for all who aren’t absolute evil. Which, in the end, means you and nobody else, because there’s always some disagreement over something.

                But I’m not worried, Ken. You’re such a fuckknob that I am quite certain the people who know you in real life have you marked out. If the violent revolution comes, you’ll just disappear one day. One, maybe two people will hear your last hysterical words, trying to convince them that you are the most righteous and correct person of all, and that they’re fools to do what they’re doing.

                And the world will go on.

                I WANT to dehumanize them, so that people on our side won’t always act like cowardly shrinking violets.

                Yep. You’re evil, and you’re really, really proud of being evil, because you slapped a sticker on it that says “Good!”.

                More than anything, I want violence by the Right to be so common that I myself can do it and have little chance of getting into trouble.

                And here we have the real crux of the matter. You, Ken, are a monster, and you’re just trying to make everyone else more monstrous, so you can act according to your nature without getting caught.

                I reiterate: The people who know you already know what you are. If you had any sense at all, you would be praying that this state of affairs never comes to pass, because if it does, you’re toast.

                I want to be able to walk up to a woman and say, “My side was responsible for the Berkeley massacre of 2019. Yes, we are the bad boys.”

                Honey, nobody thinks you could ever impress a woman, no matter what you say.

                And I can hear your shocked gasps…

                Er, no, that was a suppressed giggle at how clueless you are.

                but the Leftists do this all the time, and it works.

                Also no. You’re delusional.

                Think of how you look when you endlessly jaw-jaw-jaw about the philosophy of your politics, while the other side is killing people for theirs.

                “Think of how you look” says the guy who is so desperate for some way to impress a girl he has to create a fantasy where the world is in chaos so he can pretend to be responsible for it, because maybe that will finally get him laid.

                Think of how you look when you say, “I weep for my country.” Well, if you’re weeping for your country, WHY THE HELL DIDN’T YOU FIGHT AND, YES, KILL FOR IT?

                If you’re so righteous, Mr. McVeigh, why not start the killing yourself? Oh, right, you don’t want to face any consequences for your actions. That’s how we know how righteous you are.

                Insert your insults below.

                It’s cute how you think you understand people. You think you know how to impress girls. You think you know how to lead a revolution. You think you can short-circuit insults by inviting them.

                Thank you for sharing your wank fantasies with us, loser.

        1. If no roughing up happened, at least the thought that it might have impelled many of us to vote. Okay, I would have voted anyway, but many others probably would have been too depressed to vote if the thought that we were FINALLY on the scoreboard hadn’t picked up their spirits.

          And I was actually a Cruz supporter originally. But you know what? I am glad he lost. Why? Because during his 2018 reelection bid, he and his wife were surrounded by Antifa targets. The moment someone attacks your wife, it is YOUR MORAL DUTY to shed their blood. And Cruz just sat there doing nothing. We don’t need a coward in the White House.

          1. MORAL Duty? Really? Care to cite chapter & verse on that?

            Not sure I put much weight in your views of what we do and do not need.

          2. I didn’t vote because anyone was roughed up.
            Personally I think you need counseling.
            Or perhaps a better approach to reality based on knowing a bit more history.

          3. You do know that roughing people up doesn’t increase your vote count as much as it decreases the other side’s vote count, right?

            I realize that you probably don’t like the Carrera’s Legions series because you think the title character’s a liberal wuss, but you seriously need to see a doctor. Your anger is mucking up your logic centers.

          4. Son, you’re STUPID. If you are surrounded by a mob, especially if you have people you care about in there with you, your first priority is to get them out of there in one piece, and unless you are Superman, the best way to do that is to speak softly and head for the exit. Because it takes people awhile to work themselves up to violence, and you should be accepting anything that gets you out of the unfavorable tactical situation you are in.

            Cruz did exactly what he should have done.

              1. I mean, I’ve made it more than sufficiently clear that I expect armed conflict. But fighting stupid isn’t going to win. If you’re not going to fight smart then I don’t want you around me.

                1. I don’t disagree there will be armed violence. Heck, there’s already been (ask Scalise) but I expect it to be isolated in both time and space and spread out.

            1. Cruz has done nothing but impress me these last three years. He even got over the acrimony between him and Trump to forward what’s good for America.
              But some idiots want him to break faces, or whatever. I think Cruz will do fine without the psychopath vote.

    7. Why do I have the distinct notion that, if it did come to a war, you would be excellent at killing unarmed civilians, and absolutely terrible at doing literally anything else whatsoever?

    8. > Why shouldn’t we hate these
      > vile traitors?
      On the one eyestalk, that’s where conditioning pushes. Hence the new “feelcrime”.

      Indiscriminate and total anesthesia constitutes ovinization. An ovinized individual never imagines responding to any kind of threat with any kind of defensive action, certainly not violence. To the ovinized, anything bad that happens is either (a) an accident, or (b) the result of some sin or other moral error. The concept of an “enemy” does not exist.
      — Moldbug

      …but on the other eyestalk, “opposite effect” doesn’t necessarily turns things the better side up. Just like twitching and drooling on the floor from a large dose of stimulant isn’t any better than snoring and drooling on the floor from a large dose of narcotic.
      Example: what’s with this “traitors” nonsense? You still cannot call a spade a spade, but maintain pretenses which so far worked great for the other side.
      May it be because hating them feels so good that you won’t go cold turkey for long enough to analyze the situation in its present and historical context (or evaluate analyzes performed by others)? Just so that you could at least hate them for something more serious (there’s a lot to choose from, really) than supposedly sudden, yet inevitable betrayal of the causes on which they repeatedly, openly and loudly declared war? Because that’s ridiculous. :]
      > was inserted cunningly into the GOP script by those who now call themselves NeverTrumpers
      That’s just good old American Conservatives (aka “Outer Party”), so used to throwing a match after a match that they feel confused and scared by a prospect of doing anything other than fake opposition routine.

  19. Applying “understanding” to someone who viscerally hates you and your beliefs AND wants you dead is no way to survive what is coming down the tracks.
    Rather one should simply accept the facts as they currently are and prepare according so as to be off the track when this particular train goes by.
    Of course having a goodly supply of C4 and applying it to the correct location on those self-identified tracks might also be helpful.
    Being an OF with a minimal supply of patience, these days I tend toward the simpler solutions.

    1. When someone says they hate you, believe them and prepare to defend.
      OTOH I think the best defense IS to understand them and counter them. Killing is only if they PHYSICALLY try to kill us. Don’t fall into the trap of destroying civilization to destroy them.

    2. If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
      If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
      If you know neither yourself nor the enemy, you will succumb in every battle.

      –Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Comments are closed.