One of the problems we’re dealing with with the left right now, is that they’ve lost the distinction between light and dark.

To explain: when I was taking art, our teacher told us, the first year, that you can tell most student art, because it looks washed out, like someone left it out to fade.

That’s not true, of course, but most students are afraid to use dark colors, particularly in big concentrations.  Because if you do, it can be so hard to lighten/soften them if you went too far.

OTOH, if you don’t use the dark, you lose both the light and the mid-tints. Without that contrast there, everything runs to a sort of grayish indistinct, a mishmash of stuff with no sense to it.

The problem of the left is that they started taking grey and calling it black.  Actually it’s worse than that.  They decided dark pink is black. Which makes the resulting painting a swirl of meaningless colors and tones.

Look, as long as I’ve been alive, anyone who runs against the communist/socialist/Marxist is “literally Hitler.”

Of course, the closest that the modern era has seen to Hitler, and far out-stripping him in sheer numbers, were the Marxists Mao and Stalin.  But it’s different when they do it, because their hearts are pure, I guess.

Seriously, the problem is this, and this is the reason that these comparisons make sense to them, even if your average Marxist does no actually know this history or the gestalt behind the philosophy he expounds:

Marxism billed itself as a scientific political-economic system. It was supposed to look at history and sociology and codify it in the light of science, and therefore be able to extrapolate what would happen.

And what would happen would be that the workers would revolt, take over the means of production, establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, and then somehow automagically, the state would wither away, and you’d have a stateless society where people had changed so much — the famous homus sovieticus — that they’d willingly hold all in common, economy would consist of people exchanging everything for free, from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs, and–

Other tommy rot of the sort. The thing was never scientific of course. You can’t have scientific history (you can have scientific economics, but it’s different from what idiot Marx thought. Economics is always descriptive, not prescriptive, as a science, and also what the man didn’t know about economics could fill several universes to bursting. The man had never run a lemonade stand or worked for a living. Among other problems the concept of distribution was opaque to him and led him to think distributors were “stealing.”) because you can’t know all of history. History is made up of a ton of little things. Look at the fall of the tsar, as an example (I had a rather disturbed dream about it, so it’s in my head.) would it be the same if the tsarovich hadn’t had hemophilia? If he and his wife had had three sons and one daughter, and one had been healthy?

How do you know? More importantly, how do you run the experiments, to compare and prove your thesis. You can’t.

More importantly, while you can look at a situation and take from it guidance to other similar situations, you really can’t assume they’re exactly the same. And it’s never, ever, ever prescriptive. You can’t say “I studied this old situation so this new one will be like this.”  And you certainly can’t make prophecies about the end of history and the new man, and call it scientific. or rather, you CAN if you’re a no-account grifter whose knowledge of REAL history and economics can be written on the head of a thimble with room to spare.

And what you write is not scientific and is self-serving religion.

The problem is the early Marxists, captured by the just-so story became fervent believers in this AS SCIENCE and as something devoutly to hope for.

No, really, these people viewed the annihilation of the human race as it existed (what do you think replacing it with homus sovieticus meant?) as a good thing. Probably because we’d crossed the threshold where you had to be sane to survive. The entire breed was technically too wealthy and was suffering from the disease of the sons of rich families: self-loathing and a belief in airy-fairy nonsensical just-so stories.

They also viewed it as inevitable. Anyone slowing it down was “reactionary”and “ignorant” and other things that meant they were standing in the way of “progress.”

Let’s get out of the way right now that Marx’s vision never worked as advertised. If you number the revolutions of the proletariat (defined as the industrial working class, but hell, I’ll even give you farmers) that have happened, you’ll count…oh, yeah, zero.

What we’ve had from Russia to China to the clusterf*ck in Venezuela is revolutions by grifter intellectuals (Marx’s chosen people) who claimed to be doing it in the name of the proletariat and who theoretically gave ownership of the means of production to the proletariat, while in fact keeping control and manipulating the vast, and increasingly more scared crowd of starving peasants to do their murder for them.

Which, btw, is what the left is trying. Because we don’t have starving peasants, they’re importing them by the million from the third world, in order to do a revolution in their name, and then claim that they are in control and it’s a “dictatorship of the proletariat” while in fact, the graduates of our ivy leagues do monstrous things to everyone and enrich themselves while destroying the nation.

Because Hitler declared war on Stalin, who was — of course — Marxist and therefore in their stupid little noggins a “good person” and “fighting for progress” he was evil.

They don’t really understand WHY he was evil. To do that, they’d have to understand his belief that he could manipulate everyone and create a new human race was de-facto evil, and if they understood that, they’d end up screaming in front of the mirror in the morning. So instead they attach to the touch-feel of things he did, without even understanding why they were evil, or how evil they were, or how destructive.

This is how we get idiot Occasional Cortex and the idiot Millenial Cultural Revolution Brigades who follow her, to think that putting migrants in camps at the border is EXACTLY the same as the death camps in Germany.

Because both Hitler and us not letting their chosen people in, in whose names they plan to get power, stand in the way of Marxism. Therefore we’re exactly the same and there’s no difference whatsoever.

Yep. Black and dark pink are exactly the same, even if no sane people would see it that way, because, you know, neither of them are yellow.

So we get, you know, people living in bunks and perhaps not getting to pick their menu, and not having the right board games, is the logical equivalent of death camps.  Not letting people of a different culture who have nothing to do with us and no claim on us waltz in and — btw — consume MASS quantities of our public services? It’s the same as taking your very own citizens, expropriating their wealth, making it impossible for them to work, and putting them in a camp where they’re either supposed to work to death, or be killed for their hair, the gold in their teeth and their bones which are then used as industrial materials.

They don’t realize there is a difference between saying “no, you can’t come in to our country” (which by the way EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD DOES, because a country without borders is not a country) and putting people in camps where you feed them a paste made of paper and old clothes, to find out if humans can survive on that. (This horrifies me more than the ovens, because of the sheer CONTEMPT of it.)

They don’t even understand the fundamental difference: no one in America wants to exterminate everyone of Latin (or Latin American) descent. (The stupid crazy idea that ICE is stopping everyone who can tan and deporting them is in fact bullshit.  While younger son gets stopped a lot, it’s because he drives a red sportscar (it’s what he chose to buy. We TRIED to talk him out of it) not because he tans. Hell, I tan and have an accent, and I have yet to be asked to prove citizenship, including in situations where I should be, btw.) (Okay, maybe someone does, but there’s 300 million of us. So there is more than a thousand people who want us all to wear tin foil hats, and there’s probably the same number who thinks everyone who doesn’t have blue eyes should be killed.  The point is, they’re not in power, and most of them are okay if kept medicated.)  There is no concerted effort to round up legal residents and citizens (BTW I’ve found that millenials don’t know the difference. They think if you come over the border you automatically become a citizen. ARGH.) of darker skin tones and put them in camps from which they can’t leave except by dying. Hell there isn’t even a disconcerted effort. There is NOTHING.

The people detained at the border aren’t detained because we want to kill them and all their kind. What is their kind, btw? since we’re getting a mix of people from all over.

They’re being detained because we’re a sovereign land. That means this land is for people who share a culture and beliefs, or at least agree to abide by our laws (breaking through our border immediately declares you don’t, guys.) Furthermore, we as a polity, get to choose WHOM we let in.

Most countries have this. The minimum requirement is that you NOT go on welfare/assistance for x number of years (some places ten.) Then there might be extra points if they need, say, doctors, or English teachers, or something.  “We were told to speed these people along” is a thing.  I’m honestly iffy on that part, because it’s too much of planed economy and usually crazy, but eh, something we have the right to do.

I used to believe the thing that most illegals wanted to come in to work and not to take advantage of our welfare system. It might even have been true, at one time. But at least since Obama’s presidency, everything I hear from friends who intersect with this stuff from health professionals to education professionals, to social workers, is that 90% of our resources are being consumed by people who are here illegally and who not only contribute nothing, but can’t even understand they SHOULD contribute anything, because they’ve been propagandized all their lives that America stole all their raw materials or whatever, and that the poverty in their country is our fault. So they’re here to steal back their stuff, or grift it from us, all the while hating us. Because they were told it’s our fault, and they have a right.

This is part of the Marxists attempts to weaponize peasants, even if they have to import them.

It’s also the only thing that explains the caravans coming in singing their countries’ anthems.  IOW as an invasion force.

Putting them in camps is a bit crazy. We should be confiscating all weapons and sending them back under armed escort.  But hey.

And the number one difference between death camps and migrant camps? If you’re put in a migrant camp you can leave at any minute, if you agree to go back home. I think we even pay for the ticket.

To the millenials and convinced Marxists, no, this was not true in Auschwitz. Most of those people just wanted to go home and back to work and their normal lives.  The idea that Jews (or the other persecuted minorities) were “invaders” was just Hitler’s insanity. They were just Germans.

Wake me up when the US starts rounding up anyone who can tan, puts them in camps and doesn’t let them leave.

I’m going to suggest we start by rounding up Occasional Cortex, put her in a camp and not let her out till she can reliably tell the difference between dark pink and black, form three sentences coherently AND know a modicum of history not Marxist indoctrination.  And for the love of heaven, while you have her, do something about her teeth.  It’s like she has a vagina dentata for a mouth.

Meanwhile, kids, and those who should not act like kids but do: STOP THE MORAL PANICS. You’re suffering from semantic confusion.

Treating people as objects, taking their property away, silencing them, banning them from the public sphere, making it impossible for people who dissent to earn a living, and destroying books you disagree with?  THAT’s being literally Hitler. (Yes, it’s also a few of your favorite things.  Look in that mirror and keep looking.)

Making people sleep in dormitories because they tried to waltz through your border to collect what the left told them is their due (i.e. to rob you blind)?  That’s not literally Hitler.

Not only weren’t the Jews breaking into Nazi Germany for the benefits, but most them would have been ecstatic to be allowed to go away.

Your bizarre obsession with this comparison is not only obvious semantic and historical confusion, it’s a screaming case of trivializing evil and borders on Holocaust denial.

No wonder, having lost the plot you now think Trump is just like Hitler because he makes speeches.  Did you ever hear Obama and his cadences?  Never mind.

Look, you drink water, Hitler drank water. You’re literally Hitler. And it’s twice as bad if you drink water while vegetarian. Just like Hitler.

Evil is evil. It’s not superficial resemblances. It’s thinking you can — and SHOULD — control people and history and you think that you have a right — nay a DUTY — to do so, because you know better than any given individual what’s better for him/her.  True evil is stopping at nothing in enforcing your will and forgetting other people are people too, and should have free will.

Look in that mirror. LOOK. It is not dormitories that make camps.

And we’re not letting you go all the way to camps. Because we’re not. Because some of us have sworn to devote our lives to fighting evil totalitarianism.

We know what it is. We know the stench of it.

We will not be confused.

And you shall not pass.

233 thoughts on “Boundaries

  1. I remember the caravans with signs saying (IIRC) “Trump Is Hitler”.

    Right! Who wants to come to a country ruled by Hitler?? 😈

      1. I’ve noticed they are now asserting that allowing everybody in and giving them welfare is reparations for how we’ve behaved in the past.

        That nonsense isn’t even good as fertilizer. They want to drag us down into their s*ithole status, then blame us for it. We’re seeing the cultural playout of Abusive Spouse Syndrome, and they’re going to make ASSes of us all.

          1. Yup. People raised with the Anglo-American culture tend to not appreciate just how good we really are at government. Yes, there is corruption and incompetence, but they are retail, not wholesale. The Spanish Empire was known for not being terribly competent in governing.

            1. People raised with the Anglo-American culture tend to not appreciate just how bad everyone else is at government.

              We’re mediocre at it, but all of the non-Anglosphere cultures (with the exception of Japan, which has Anglo-style government grafted onto it) are really, really bad.

            2. The Portuguese too, but Portuguese government has fewer effects, given that Portuguese culture is — as Larry and I realized while writing Guardian — a nation of oppositional defiational disorder. Everyone’s personal shout is “you’re not the boss of me!”

      2. Part of the problem has been the common lie that Hitler is ‘right wing’. This has always confused me (and never been properly explained) because I’ve always thought of it as left-wing. I reckoned it was one of the contradictions of mind that the Left engage in; they’re perfectly fine with Stalin and Mao by whitewashing or ignoring their several hundred million killcount, but Hitler, that’s too far! e_e So they like to ignore all the parts of history that they don’t like.

        And frankly, with the Left’s anti-Semitism, really, they’ve lots more in common with the Nazis.

        1. Here’s the thing about Hitler vs. Stalin/Mao/et. al. The reason why Hitler gets cited as “right-wing” is because he sought to co-opt the aristocracy, the industrialists, and the middle-class, rather than seeking to destroy them, as the Communists do.

          1. Demonizing Adolf is also a convenient distraction.

            It is the old “monkee get most upset over monkee who looks only slightly different” situation.

          2. That would also be why Nazism was economically and technologically more effective than the Soviets’ system.

            But there is much power to be gained by feeding the peasants’ animosity toward their “betters” and if most of society is scrapped there is money to be made selling it to the scrapyard.

            1. Let us not forget that Nazis started with an industrialized nation. That accounts for a lot.

            1. The only difference lies in the locus of their loyalty. Communists put loyalty to party, to ideology ahead of all else (until they learn, as the Castro brothers and Hugo Chavez learned, that loyalty to self is even better.) Industrialists and middle class tended to have to earn their positions through performance … although for too many of them connections was the arena where performance mattered most.

        2. They only hate Hitler because he backstabbed Stalin before Stalin could jump him.

          1. I wish I could agree with that, but in my darker moments I believe they only hate Hitler because they know we hate Hitler. It is a form of the persuasive technique termed, IIRC, pacing, in which they affirm their being in step with us and then try to direct our emotions against their desired target.

            Their hatred of Hitler is thus instrumental, a means to an end, rather than a solid principle in itself.

            1. Here’s a nasty little experiment I tried, once.

              Go through the Nazi party platform and doctrine; restate it in modern SJW terms, and substitute “Israel” for “Jews”.

              Have one of the educated “elite” leftists take a look at it, and ask their opinion of it all.

              You won’t like what you hear.

        3. Stalin said Hitler was right-wing. That makes him right-wing, comrade. All good useful idiots know that he’s right-wing, and only a kulak would think otherwise.

          1. yep. Me- “Tell me what was “right Wing” about the Nazis.”
            [long pause]
            “They were racist!”
            me- “Oh? Like Segregationists?”
            me – “The Democrats started segregation, and fought hard to keep it.”
            then they either go off somewhere else (conversationally or physically) or try to claim all the segregationist dems then swapped to the party that fought them tooth and nail and cannot name “all” then rage quit when you point out Byrd was the biggest one and was still a dem when he last used the derogatory “N” word on the Senate floor, about a year or two before he left office, because he died.

    1. “0bama was more a Mussolini 45 single played at 33 1/3”

      He even said, to a group of historians, that he favored a corporatist form of government.

      1. Except he believed in communist goals; he was just willing to use fascist structure to achieve them. Thus, corporations were okay, as long as they served the state. Ideally I think he would have preferred full-fledged communism, but knew he couldn’t sell that but could get a lot of the crony capitalists to go along with pursuing the same goals as long as they got their cut of the government corporate dole.

        1. “Thus, corporations were okay, as long as they served the state. ”

          Yep, because even if they’re carrying out government policy, “muh private bizness” gets around that whole pesky Constitution thing. The problem is the number of “conservatives” who buy into it.

  2. Trump is merely a competent hotelier. You’re welcome to come in the front door and pay your way.
    If you break into the place he’ll call law enforcement on you. It’s not about race/sex/creed/language/lmnop. It’s about following the rules.

    1. This. It’s about playing by rules. Rules that are evenly and fairly applied.
      Nothing makes me more furious than rules which favor one side over the other. Like in the recent Ravelry imbroglio – where one (political) side is favored over the other … and in a knitting and fiber arts site? WTF?

      My thing is sewing, and doing historical patterns. Haven’t seen any kind of political madness in the few (mostly FB) sites that I follow, but then I am not working overtime, searching for heretics to burn.

      1. Well, I guess that’s it for me on Ravelry . . . No, wait, I’ve never been on Ravelry. Still, that’s just bug-nuts loony.

      2. IIRC, that happened on a spinning and weaving site for people who raised angora goats and rabbits a few years ago. Even “what’s the best way to get burrs out of goat hair” has become political!

        1. Funny how it is always “you” and never “Them” that is political.

          It is almost as if they’re tired of being incapable to defend their politics.

        2. Yet another instance of “You’re being divisive for not accepting my views without question.”

      3. Same thing happened to a tabletop gaming site I used to frequent (and in fact Ravelry got most of the text of its announcement right from the RPG site’s announcement).

        I’d already fallen off posting almost completely just due to lack of time and engagement, but the official announcement that posts in support of the current U.S. administration would earn permanent banning status was a bridge too far. I haven’t gone back since. (And I’m not even American.)

        1. It would be interesting to inquire whether posts condemning the current administration would also be banned.

          I expect we all know the answer to that.

          1. To be perfectly fair, on the tabletop games site, outright group attacks on Republican voters (or conservatives or Christians) will still get people sanctioned, if reported.

            Whether they have to reach a much higher threshold than the opposite direction of criticism does before counting as an “attack”, I can’t say, but it wouldn’t surprise me. They are most likely much less reported, at any rate, because most who might object have already left or stopped bothering.

  3. people living in bunks and perhaps not getting to pick their menu, and not having the right board games

    …said people being able to leave whenever they please by just saying so, and then generally get a coach plane ticket back home, even if they arrived via shanks mare.

    So yeah, totes just like Birkenau…

        1. Which is why they’re encouraging employees to walk out rather than fulfill the contracts for the supplies to remedy the situation…..

          Too dishonest to live with……

        2. For purposes of accuracy, it should be stated that the Inspector General’s most recent random surprise inspections of detainment facilities did discover, at all four sites, significantly substandard levels of care that did pose serious health risks — spoiled food, soiled clothing, etc.

          What was not found at any of these four was any significant level of actual health consequences (nothing like what’s actually happening on the streets of L.A. and San Francisco) or any continuation of child-parent separation. So while there is room to improve what’s happening and failures that need correction, the shrieks of moral condemnation are not only useless but actually counterproductive.

          (If your goal is actually to solve the problem, at any rate. If your goal is to gin up outrage for the next election it’s perfectly cromulent.)

  4. The “humanitarian crisis” is not the illegal immigrants, it is the crimes being committed all over our country by illegal immigrants; the humanitarian crisis is what is being done everyday to US citizens.

    1. The crisis is also how huge numbers of immigrants depress wages for native-born Americans and make it more difficult for unskilled workers to find jobs.

  5. So if immigration law is unfair, why is AOC agitating against those who enforce the law as written instead of legislating? I can think of at least two or thee possible reasons, none of them flattering.

    1. There’s a business that got a contract to send beds for the kids. Its workers walked off the job on strike over that. AOC is supporting them.

      This woman wants kids to sleep on the floor.

  6. Thanks for bringing up the memory of Bob Ross stabbing at a canvas with his brush “Darker! Darker!! Without Darkness, you can’t have light!” good times.

        1. Don Knotts was also a drill instructor.

          Having been through US Marine Bootcamp, I don’t have trouble imagining either one as Drill Instructors. Bob Ross probably wasn’t all that bad… But I can imagine Don Knotts was one of those DIs who would do stuff to make you laugh… then sadistically punish the crap out of you for breaking your bearing. I know it sounds bad, but it’s MUCH better than the DI who would sneak up behind me in formation and whisper at the back of my neck “You are weak, I hate you” DAMN… that runs right through you. I almost pissed myself a couple times.

          LOL!! good times… now that they are firmly in the rear view mirror. 🙂

        2. Had a lovely Gym teacher in High school that was ex marine DI. Very soft spoken and congenial in his demeanor. In his early 60’s he could still run a bunch of lazy ’70s teens into the ground and still look fresh as daisy. Saw him dress down a group of the soccer yobs for misusing the weight stations. No profanity or obscenity but they were about 3″ tall when he was done. He reminded me nothing so much as of Sgt. Zim from Starship Troopers.

  7. The problem of the left is that they started taking grey and calling it black.

    I appreciated this take by Prof. Dershowitz, making the point that the lost ability to make distinctions renders you morally incoherent:

    “By making that comparison, she becomes a Holocaust denier, because what’s she’s saying is: ‘Gee, if all that Hitler did is what Trump is doing on the southern border,’ then there were no death camps, there were no killing squads, there was no genocide, there was no murder of a million-and-a-half babies, there were no selections where people were picked based on their health and whether they were twins and subjected to the most gruesome form of punishment.’”

    HT: Instapundit

  8. They’re being detained because we’re a sovereign land.

    So the sovereignty of the people here is interesting to me as applied to the domestic homelessness thing as well as the uninvited immigrant thing, especially here in the Glorious And Poop-Filled Bear Flag Peoples Republic – Basically, what is the obligation of the political leadership within a polity to the people who were already in the polity, vs. newcomers? Is there a distinction between folks who arrive within the bounds of law and otherwise? Does the mayor and county supervisor and state senator and governor each have an obligation to look after the interests of the residents of the city or county or state that were there when they were elected in preference to other interests, and if there’s a conflict, to prioritize those resident’s interests above those others interests? What if the other interest are those of, say, as a purely hypothetical example, those of folks who express a desire to be here while sitting at their residence in Guatemala? How about those of someone who shows up at the border wanting to walk in? OK, how about when someone arrives and pitches their tent on the city sidewalk? What if the sidewalk is the one in front of Nancy Pelosi’s house? Whose interests take priority?

    Well, the last one is obvious, but the rest of this is a basic question: Who do the politicians work for – the people who elected them, or some larger future set of people who are the aggregate of everyone who happens to wander in? Certainly the newcomers have rights and privileges (and responsibilities), but how does a polity weight the interests of the sidewalk squatter in front of Nancy’s estate vs. Nancy’s interests?

    Other than what would happen to Nancy’s sidewalk squatter, I’m honestly not sure what the answer is.

    The common right-of-way interests that are being sacrificed on the sidewalks of SF so that people can live there would seem to imply that, by extension, people could start building homes on the edge of interstate highways. Or even build in traffic lanes, as long as they don’t block too much of the traffic lanes.

    Do you weigh interests based on time in the bounds of the polity? Or the number of generations there? Do newcomers who are not breaking laws outweigh the interests of those who are? Do you limit those who want in if it is in the interest of those who are already there?

    1. Does the mayor and county supervisor and state senator and governor each have an obligation to look after the interests of the residents of the city or county or state that were there when they were elected in preference to other interests, and if there’s a conflict, to prioritize those resident’s interests above those others interests?

      On a less sarcastic note, housing and zoning policies often fall in this category. Policies that may be good for current residents make in prohibitively expensive if not completely impossible to move into the area. There does seem to be a fair question as to whether or not it’s right to continue to drive up land and home prices, benefiting the current owners, while completely ignoring those who would like to come.

      Based on the policies of the places they live, Leftists seem quite comfortable prioritizing current residents in their own locations.

      1. The structure of our system is that the polity — the citizens — extend certain sovereign authority to political agents to act in the behalf of the citizens. The standard rules of agency are in effect: the agent has a duty to act on behalf of the principal and has a fiduciary responsibility to uphold the principal’s interests. An author’s agent may not, ethically, agree to take a lesser deal for book rights to curry favour with a publisher, a realtor cannot ethically reveal to a potential buyer any flaws in the principal’s representations about the property, and an elected official has no right to give away the assets of the polity represented.

        The one categorical exception relates to our inalienable rights, the protection of which is the acknowledged purpose for which government has been established. But those rights are held by the citizenry, not any persons who have merely entered our society without agreeing to respect the extant social contract.

    2. Reading Kyle Smith at National Review gangblog The Corner, it strikes me that what we are seeing with the current border crisis is an almost perfect replay of the Reagan era Homeless Crisis. Same techniques – news focusing on people in miserable horrifying conditions, same emphasis on administration “heartlessness” while ignoring the way legislative inaction has denied means for addressing the problem, same ignoring of political motives of those decrying the problem, same ignoring of the Democrats’ contribution to the problem.

      Same repugnance toward those smarmy bastards on my part, too. Weaponizing human misery for political purpose is among the most mean-spirited contemptible ploys any party can commit. Damn them, damn their faux tears, damn their lying hearts.

  9. This is terribly bad (and badthink) of me, but I’m sitting here squashing the desire to let out a very loud schadenfreudy mwahahaha (alas, I’m still at work and it wouldn’t go down well).

    Way back in the 1970s, Australia’s left wing (very left, for what it’s worth – the furthest left any Oz rule I’m aware of got) instituted mandatory detention for all illegal immigrants while their claims for refugee status were evaluated. They parked the detention camps in the middle of the desert, but made sure the detainees got decent quality food, shelter, etc. – and provided education as well.

    Funnily enough the policy gets vehemently protested every time there’s a right-ish government, but then falls away when the left is in. Even more amusing, the policy – which had been getting a lot of flak at the time – suddenly got a massive boost when a group of illegal immigrants in a rather rickety boat threatened to throw their own children overboard if they didn’t get towed to Australia.

    The general Oz population of the time took the view that if someone thinks throwing their own kids out to drown is a useful negotiation tactic, they’re not good candidates for Oz citizenship.

    It’s not well publicized but somewhere significantly north of 90% of these illegal immigrants are sent back because they don’t meet the UN standards (which Australia uses to determine refugee status). And this from a country that’s usually way more socialisty and bleeding-heart than the US.

    I wonder if the US would cause collective heart failure of the loony left by adopting UN refugee criteria and mandatory detention somewhere nasty for illegal immigrants? I’d certainly enjoy seeing it.

    1. Well, you know, it is different when Progressives do it. Thus the same policies under which the Obama Administration established these “concentration” camps and under which they deported far more entrants (on a percentage basis, vastly more) than the present administration were imposed because the Obama Administration was forced to do it as a sop to conservative pressure, whereas Trump’s people are doing because they’re simply a big bunch of meanies.

      1. Ft Sill goes from “Republicans voice concerns over funding” (or some similar Repubs Pounce style) under 0bama to “Former Japanese Internment Camps!!!1!!11eleventy!!” under Trump.

        1. It’s interesting to hear your former duty station described as a “concentration camp”. Does this mean I should apply for reparations for my assignment there? To whom do I address this request? Am I the victim of war crimes, committed by my own side on me?

          Is that how this works?

          Maybe all of us “persons of former military service” ought to address Congress for redress and reparations? I mean, if it’s so bad that we cannot house illegal aliens, then surely we should never have housed soldiers there? Am I not due compensation for them forcing me to live in that notorious hell-hole? I even have orders, signed by the duly appointed authorities above me, and there’s not a hint of judicial punishment about them–They merely sent me there, for no reason other than their convenience, along with untold thousands of other innocent American citizens who had done no wrong.

          I need to discuss this with my Congressional representation, and demand recompense for my unjust punishment. I was never even charged with a crime! This is a heinous violation of my civil rights. Or, it was, some thirty-odd years ago…

          To think, all this time… I had no idea I was immured in a concentration camp. The horror, the horror…

            1. No, I was a target.

              Seriously–Fort Sill used to have an Engineer battalion assigned to it, for “post support”. Which meant that we were quite often down in the impact areas when Range Control would forget where we were. By the time my tour at Sill was up, I had been within danger close for every single US Army artillery system from the 75mm Pack Howitzer to the 270mm MLRS.

              I learned one thing from that experience: Do not, I repeat, do not call for fire until the gun bunnies have completed their On-the-Job-Training during the first phase of whatever war you’re in. Just… Don’t. I was within eyesight of that “accident” back in the early 1980s, where the FO class called in fire on its own position… Which was scary as hell to watch, and then realize “Uhm… Hey. That’s not good… We’re within the circular error on that target they’re calling in…”.

              Range Control at Sill, back in those days? Dear God… There were times when I thought they were deliberately trying to kill us. They kept calling it “mistake”, but after about the seventh consecutive time where we’d be working in the impact area, well… Yeah. Ya start to wonder, you does…

    2. And the recent “safe and sanitary” thing and complaining that the lights stay on all night. What *exactly* is safe about turning the lights out when the “kids” are all held together and not in separate cells?

      Funds to improve facilities and accommodations? Yes, please. But nothing about “safe and sanitary” even implies “comfortable”. Does that mean that we can’t try to fix stuff better? Of course not. It just means that it doesn’t even imply “comfortable.”

      1. note: the “recent” thing was 2105, under Obama. The case has dragged out and is still being argued.

        And the point being argued was that the requirements are different from the original settlement. The reason for doing this is that if the requirements have changed, that’s a hook that would let Trump challenge the entire settlement.

        Another note. If a kid not having a toothbrush is ‘abusive’, doesn’t that mean that if the kid arrives without a toothbrush it means that the parent is abusing the kid and the kid needs to be taken into protective custody away from the parents?

        1. I’m perfectly okay, btw, with “you bring a kid under three. You have three days to go back home. No? Okay, your kid is put up for adoption by any willing and non-criminal American family. Now go away.” I’d be okay with that because bringing the kids on this IS child abuse.

                1. That makes sense. And any kid over three would be returned?
                  I just had a horrifying thought of parents bringing kids to be adopted for a better life, were that true… Claiming 4 or 5 year olds are 3. How could you tell? I don’t know the culture, so would that be likely?

                    1. yes, why do you think these po and starvin folks have lawyers vehemently opposing paternity tests for said kids?

                    1. Attitudes towards children throughout history were different. To some degree the issue is if their odds of surviving to pre-adolescent are small you try not to get too attached. Part of it is that the world outside the 1st world pre 20th century is a Hobbesian place, nasty and brutish. You have enough to worry about your own skin, if throwing a kid under the proverbial bus keeps you moving you tend to just do it and move on.

                  1. X-ray of the hand, and lower leg (? I know hand works). You can get a bone-age from that. Granted, malnutrition can throw the reading off, but there are non-invasive medical tests that will give you age within a realistic span.

            1. because after that there is a non-trivial cultural footprint already implanted. It will take a very special family to raise that child to be American.

          1. Question I’d quite like answered is what they’re doing about those kids who are not the biological children of their putative “parents”. Should those people not be charged with kidnap? Child-theft? Human trafficking?

            You try crossing a border with a kid that’s not yours and no paperwork anywhere in the world, and see what happens. Some countries, you’ll be lucky if they put you inside the jail, rather than under it. I can recall numerous cases where even non-custodial parents have gotten into deep trouble when their paperwork was not straight.

            1. I think the exact charge is going to vary on a case-by-case basis, but the key thing is that they will go from ‘asylum seeker’ to ‘criminal being held awaiting trial’.

          2. yup. It’s CHILD ABUSE to drag a small toddler across deserts! I feel for the kids, because I was dragged around from state to state, and it’s NOT good for them. At least with me, I could speak the language and many parts of the US were ‘same-ish’.

            I’ve heard some, suddenly, bleeding hearts crying about how horrible the conditions are for the children and if you don’t want it stopped, you’re a monster. WTF? Yes, I want it to stop. I wanted it to stop YEARS ago! I want ADULTS to stop dragging little kids across dangerous areas, in the heat, without adequate sanitation and hydration. I want to STOP giving incentives for unsavory folks to just snatch a kid near the border to make their crossing easier. The laws we’ve made have made it worse for children.

            Do these bleeding heart leftists think the kids are sleeping every night at the Ritz, between clean sheets, in the weeks they are traveling? Do they really think the kids are brushing their teeth before bed time as mommy reads them a story?

    3. There were some serious mistakes made by the left wing media when they tried to play up the refugees’ desperation. They featured those ‘refugees’ threatening to drop their children over the side (and doing so), and a refugee man crying about how he fled his ‘war torn homeland, leaving his wife, daughters and elderly mother behind.’

      The resulting outrage and responses must’ve shocked the media, who probably expected the Aussies to react like left-wing Americans. As you described, those willing to sacrifice their loved ones and family for emotional blackmail did not sit well with the Aussies, who said that ‘any c*** cowardly enough to run away and not protect his female family members isn’t someone who should be here.’ ‘If he’s willing to sacrifice his wife, children and mum to save his own skin, what possible positive contribution could the SOB be to Australia?’

      Supposedly, (I haven’t heard anything factual on this) the rule is that if the refugees start threatening to drown their children or start sinking their boats to ‘force Australian Coast Guard / Navy to rescue them’, the ships are to back away and let them go down.

      1. Why, it is as if virtue-signalling is of greater importance than addressing these people’s needs.

        What if the Wayfair walkout actually hurts migrant children?
        Employees at the Wayfair headquarters in Boston are staging a walkout over the treatment of immigrants at the border, but their protest may harm the group they’d like to help.

        The #WayfairWalkout on Wednesday is meant to protest the home goods company’s decision to sell products for migrant detention centers, as recent reports have indicated that there really is a crisis at the border. …

        In response, Wayfair employees are protesting the company for selling to a contractor that manages facilities for migrant children. The Boston Globe reports that the plan began last week:

        Last Wednesday, they learned that a $200,000 order of bedroom furniture had been placed by BCFS, a government contractor that has been managing camps at the border. More than 500 employees signed a letter of protest sent to company executives. When the company refused to change course, employees organized the walkout.

        But the walkout will do little to help migrant children at the border. Shouldn’t the employees be glad that their company is supplying centers that appear to be severely lacking in resources? Wayfair thinks so.

        “As a retailer, it is standard practice to fulfill orders for all customers, and we believe it is our business to sell to any customer who is acting within the laws of the countries within which we operate,” company leadership said in a statement to employees. “We believe all of our stakeholders, employees, customers, investors, and suppliers included are best served by our commitment to fulfill our orders.”


        … migrant detention centers, especially those that house children, desperately need resources. So protesting a company’s decision to provide furniture for them seems illogical.

        If employees want to aid migrants awaiting immigration and asylum hearings, they might consider helping their company provide them with the resources they desperately need. Otherwise, they’re just making immigrants sleep on the floor to own the cons.

  10. More importantly, while you can look at a situation and take from it guidance to other similar situations, you really can’t assume they’re exactly the same.

    Oh, you can assume all sorts of things; you know what they say about what happens when you assume.

    The fact that there are too many variables to make assumptions viable is beside the point. [Heck] – even in the United States there are such significant cultural differences that what policies are practical in new England may well be disastrous in Appalachia … because the people there are not the same. Some cultures bow to authority, others merely bow their necks.

  11. Um, does this mean you might want a guest post about city rights, city walls, and city duties in medieval and early modern Europe?

    1. Ooh.

      And to our hostess: Thank you for this post, and several comments thereafter. People have been giving me headaches about this.

  12. A friend posted a quote from Grapes of Wrath describing how the Okies were treated in CA during dust bowl years and likening it to the current migrant crisis on the southern US border. But….Okies were *actual* citizens, as I pointed out to her.

    1. Details, always quibbling over details. Can’t you see there is a greater cause here?

      Just what that cause is has yet to be revealed, but I am reliably assured by my shepherds that it is great.

    2. Sympathy for your fellow citizen, especially a law-abiding one, is something just about everyone can pull off. It doesn’t make you special.

  13. Look at the fall of the tsar, as an example (I had a rather disturbed dream about it, so it’s in my head.) would it be the same if the tsarovich hadn’t had hemophilia? If he and his wife had had three sons and one daughter, and one had been healthy?

    If the Tsarevich had been healthy, Rasputin probably doesn’t end up the power behind the throne, and that helps. The fact that all of the upper positions in the Russian government were filled by people whose main qualification was “Liked by Rasputin” seems like a big part of what caused things to go belly-up so fast.

    On the other hand, if we assume that everything else still pretty much went as it did (problems with the war effort, Nicholas taking personal command of the army), Alexandra still ends up in charge, she still probably needs an adviser, and who’s to say she doesn’t end up with someone just as weird as Rasputin? Nothing in that woman’s biography suggests to me she was a particularly good judge of character, and she seemed to have a weakness for occult charlatans.

    On the third hand, however, maybe she’s not quite so vehement in her defense of the minister’s she picked if she doesn’t see her son’s life depending on it, so maybe at least some of the incompetents get thrown out and some of the more skilled ones are allowed to stay…

    I could do this all day. It’s fun, it’s educational, it’s good mental exercise, but one thing it definitely isn’t is scientific.

    1. Well, there are doubts about how much power Rasputin actually had.

      There’s evidence that Tsar Nicholas actually refused to accept as advisers people that Rasputin suggested (even when he was on the front lines).

      The most likely story IMO is that plenty of the Nobles used him as a scapegoat rather than him being the “power behind the throne”.

      There are so many stories about Rasputin that it is nearly impossible to separate fact from fiction.

      By the way, I’ve heard that once the Communists took power in Russia, they investigated the stories about Rasputin being Alexandra’s lover. They found no evidence for those stories and you can be sure that they would have loved for those stories to be true. 😈

      1. By the way, I’ve heard that once the Communists took power in Russia, they investigated the stories about Rasputin being Alexandra’s lover. They found no evidence for those stories and you can be sure that they would have loved for those stories to be true.

        There were a lot of people who would have loved those to be true, but yeah, I would say unlikely in the extreme simply based on the characters of those involved. Alexandra was a bit of a prude even by the standards of her time, and Rasputin knew which side his bread was buttered on. His position depended on Alexandra seeing him as “Holy man of God, here to save your son,” and not “Horny peasant, here to jump your bones.” Even if he could have seduced her, I doubt he would have risked trying.

      2. So, he wasn’t really Russia’s greatest love machine? Disappointing.

        1. Nor was he an undead sorcerer (as the Disney movie portrayed him). 😈

          1. You sure? It seemed to take a lot of effort to kill him. Of course, maybe his assassins were incompetent . . .

    2. The problem was that Alexandra, like Marie Antoinette, was not willing to let her husband morph into a constitutional monarch…which would give him a lot more political shielding.

      1. That, and neither was Nicholas II. The problem was that the man believed it was his duty to be an autocrat, because he was tsar, but he had neither the natural temperament not the training for it.
        The man is the poster child for “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

  14. If we are running concentration camps on the border, they are the first concentration camps in history where the inmates can choose to leave and go home at any time.

    All they have to do is renounce their claims for asylum.

    1. Right? And considering many of their stories in interviews freely given is “I saw the caravan and thought ‘why not?'” it’s not like they are in fear of death if they go back.

      1. One problem not being acknowledged by the Leftist Press, is that SOMEBODY IS FEEDING THOSE CARAVANS all the way to the US border, and organizing all the logistics for them. They are not coming all that way on their own resources.

        cough-[George Soros]-cough

        So the people got a free ride to the border from Guatemala, but there’s no free ride home again. They’re stuck.

        Did you notice how fast the Mexican government caved in to Trump’s ultimatum? They’re terrified he’ll tell all the migrants to fuck off and run them through the gates back to Mexico. Because then the MEXICANS will have to feed them all and send them home, which would very likely end in the defeat of the Mexican government. Or possibly the entire government ending up on lamp posts in Mexico City. That’s a possibility.

        The other thing is that Mexico does a very tidy business fleecing illegals in the USA for phone calls home, and for money transfers from the USA to Mexico. That’s why Carlos Slim is one of the world’s richest men. If all those illegals got sent back to Mexico, Carlos Slim would no longer be one of the world’s richest men and might find himself on a lamp post. He’s probably spending a LOT of money to make sure that doesn’t happen.

          1. Was that here? I read stuff all over the place, and I never remember where it came from. But there have also been the odd news story about migrants being driven in buses from A to B, video of sandwiches being handed out etc.

            I also recall they’ve consistently gotten a very frosty welcome from the Mexican people, who think they’re bums. Mexicans beat them up and run them out of town.

        1. I would have liked it VERY MUCH if the threat to have the illegals shipped en masse to sanctuary cities had happened.

          Really, it would be cheaper to erect walls around those cities and then make the whole place into a refugee camp. Y’know, take the Left at their word, make them play by their own rules that they impose on everyone else… have them suffer the consequences of their insanity….

          I can dream, right?

          1. Can you imagine the humanitarian disaster that would happen from dropping a million refugees on San Francisco and LA? Its bad enough already.

            Trump made an excellent threat there, but he knew that people literally dying in the streets would not be a good look for him.

              1. Not only Sanctuary Cities outside of California, but entire Sanctuary states. Although, in other states, there are huge swaths of pockets that will not follow the state governor’s directive. Governor in question would have to call on the Feds or state reservist to force compliance, and, at least the latter, their response would be to deploy, and do nothing. Feds would just laugh.

              2. I have heard a Texan complain privately of sanctuary cities within Texas.

                You recall when that hurricane soaked Houston pretty heavily? Might’ve been fall of 2017? Charlie Hebdo ran a thing calling it judgement on Houston for all the facists and neo-nazis. IIRC, I looked it up, and Houston was something like 40+% hispanic and 30+% black.

                There are pressures here that won’t be obvious overseas, because even extensive reading on the internet is not going to fill in all the holes in the picture painted by the media.

                California’s share of the costs of Federal programs isn’t something we feel viscerally. Impacts of Federal regulations are felt, and do anger, but generally. Murders committed in California and ignored by California do not deeply excite the fears of people in other states. Our imaginations are excited by, we are angered by fear of, murders carried out here and our local government looking the other way, with the federal government stepping on anyone doing anything about it.

                If we trusted that state and local government would at least have our backs, we would not be so concerned. The Feds could still meddle, using the excuse of the state and local tyranny they ignored back in the day, but that would not bother us as much if we could count on the state government to execute murderers in our state. Our trust levels have dropped profoundly everywhere.

                Our most traumatic and per capita deadliest war was fought against ourselves, for ideological reasons, and I understand brother fought brother. Our revolutionary war, significantly likewise all three. Our cultural expectations are bloody fratricide.

                Border and border adjacent states have been hearing rumor about Mexico for decades. Texas split from Mexico, and America has fought at least one war with Mexico. Sherman knew enough to cite Mexico as justification for his theory of waging the civil war.

                I may be too Californian to say this, but it is not Californians we fear. We are concerned about ourselves, and about the growth of the security issues out from Mexico.

  15. I regret not being well enough to comment on this sensibly, without producing an insanely rambling wall of text. Of course, if I were well enough for that, I might be well enough to chase more important things, because you have said what can be constructively said.

      1. There’s a decent chance of recovery soon from the thing I’ve come down with. The chronic stuff is going to be much more of a bear, but at least I have a fairly good idea what I’m dealing with now. It’s also far more tractable than some of the possibilities.

  16. “Look, as long as I’ve been alive, anyone who runs against the communist/socialist/Marxist is “literally Hitler.””

    Here’s one reason: they’ve been LYING about absolutely everything for a hundred years or more, and now we can -see- them doing it. That’s the one thing the internet does better than anything else, it exposes liars.

    Case in point:

    New 2019 NOAA/NASA climate numbers are an even bigger lie than the 2017 numbers were.

    Another example, as was pointed out at Mad Genius Club this morning, Bookscan is mostly a polite fiction rather than a way to see how many of what book sold. Same goes for Amazon rankings.

    Lying about absolutely everything from the climate to what books are popular leaves a political faction extremely vulnerable to the truth. In 2016 an orange faced rodeo clown with bad hair took advantage of that, and he’s been kicking their asses on the world stage ever since.

    Liars hate it when you catch them and laugh at their bullshit.

    1. Every time that the NOAA or another group of government officials “adjusts” temperature data, just think of it as Big Brother announcing that the chocolate ration has been increased from 3 to 4 ounces (but wait, wasn’t it 5 ounces).

      1. Increased from 3 to 4 ounces, yes, but revisions of weight standards due to recent enhanced understanding of gravitic force and more accurate measurement of the Earth’s circumference have caused the definition of an ounce to be adjusted from 28 grams to 20 grams.

      2. I check the NOAA web site every morning, just for yucks.

        Their supercomputers and decades of algorithm tuning are depended on by, among other things, the FAA and the military. Yet while they claim to be able to get temperatures +/- 1 degree for my ZIP code, only a few miles square, they regularly miss by ten degrees, and sometimes twenty.

        Yesterday it said the high would be 84 (it hit 96) and the low would be 71 (was 65) … with a chance of SNOW STORMS.

        Well, I guess statistically there’s a chance, like the one where all the air molecules could rush to one side of the room and I’d be in vacuum…

        The NOAA really doesn’t have any resources to spare for advocacy; they are so risibly incompetent at their main job that I check them in between “The Onion” and “The Babylon Bee.”

      1. I defer to Mr. Chesterton. It’s well worth it to RTWT

        The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the
        insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His
        explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that
        the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if
        a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ’s.

        Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps
        the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle.

          1. Even Talks-To-Plants has an internally consistent system. It turns on dismissing everything any man says, and everything any woman says that doesn’t agree with her, but it’s consistent in why. Its battiness does not lie in the lack of reason.

  17. There is a nasty part of me that thinks that since the Left will ALWAYS accuse us of being Hitler, there’s nothing to lose by unleashing the full power of the police state on the Left.

    The thought of AOC and her ilk being shipped off to some hellhole to clear land mines warms my heart.

    1. Frankly, I’m not that enthused by the notion. Because I’m pretty I’d be next up for land mine clearance once the supply of leftists ran low.

  18. As I believe I have mentioned before a time or five, my late Father taught History of Science from the perspective that Style permeates an entire culture. Thus, when you have Baroque painting and Baroque drama you will tend also to have Baroque politics and Baroque science. Similarly, if a scientific theory becomes widely known and accepted it – or rather the popular understanding of it – will color aspects of society that have little to do with the original subject.

    Evolution was a superstar of a theory. Debate over it and consideration of it spilled out of the academic/scientific arena and washed over every-flipping-thing.

    And the popular understanding of evolution was (and in many corners of society, is to this day) that evolution was directional.

    Marxism is this misunderstanding of a theory of biology imposed on human history, politics, and economics. Even if the understanding of evolution was correct (and it isn’t) it would have little to nothing to do with economics.

    Father, having spent time there in his own research, always maintained that Marx had had his brain frozen into imbecility in the reading room of the British Museum.

  19. We’re in the midst of our self-proclaimed and self-elected elites self-discrediting. The Emperor ain’t wearing a stitch, yo…

    I’m not sure where this is all going to end, but one of the things that’s going to happen is that all these autistic savants which we’ve been putting in charge of things are going to create such a mass of dysfunction that they’re either going to destroy the whole environment, or they’re going to have to be replaced somehow.

    The entire paradigm we’ve been following since about the 1880s is fundamentally flawed, and demonstrably so. The educated “intellectual elites” have come up with theory after theory, put them into effect, and then they’ve crashed and burned. At some point, the rest of us need to wake up, take off the blinders, and recognize failure for what it is. What we do after that will probably include the utter discrediting of the current academic paradigm along with the entire system for selecting and creating the “elite” that really… Isn’t.

    To be honest, I think the entire system went off the rails about the time we started doing the whole “IQ” testing thing. They thought they were setting up a meritocracy, but they forgot that they weren’t God, and could only test the test, not virtue, merit, or wisdom. So, for the last hundred-plus years, these people have been selecting for a certain sort of autistic “smart kid”, telling them that they’re God’s elect, then placing them into environments tailored to their essentially autistic natures, followed by putting them in charge of things out in the real world–Which is where they’ve produced signal failure after failure ever since. Everything we’ve put these people in charge of things, we’ve gotten nothing but dysfunction.

    Take a look at Detroit, for example: Would any but the “best and brightest” have done what the elites did there? How about the homeless problems in the West Coast cities? Billion dollars a year, we’re spending in King County and metro Seattle, on “homeless services”. Had someone put your typical “average IQ” person in charge of that, they’d have looked around and said “Yeah, not happening… You pay for it, you get more of it… Let’s have the cops bust some vagrant heads in the parks, and we’re cutting the Naloxone budget to zero…”.

    Wouldn’t be kind, wouldn’t be compassionate, but you’d be able to walk through the parks your tax dollars pay for late at night, and the streets would be feces-free and without needles. You’d also have a bunch more people being forced to address their own issues, and either get with the program, or die–Because that’s how it works, in the real world where you can’t legally steal from your neighbors to fund your drug habit, and outsource the nasty brute-force part of the stick-up to the government.

    Only a college-educated certified “genius” would have ever come up with the solution set they’re applying over there in the Seattle area, right now. The common man, who has to work his ass off every day, to put food on the table? He’d have a bit of compassion, but once that ran out, it’d be root, hog, or die.

    It’s weaponized stupidity, to be quite honest–And, it’s killing our civilization. We should have demanded results from these over-certified assholes, before putting them in charge of everything. I can’t think of a single one of their programs that’s really worked the way they promised it would, whether you’re talking light rail, the homeless, or anything else they’ve put their nasty little fingers on. It’s all dysfunction, all the way down–With zero accountability for results, because we normies are too trusting.

    1. a normal person would look at $1B divided by a few tens of thousands (or in some cases, a few thousands) of people supported and point out that this is better than a middle-class income on a per-person basis, but yet at the end of the year the people are still homeless and destitute.

      1. Maybe they should be given a choice; enter into treatment voluntarily and get a warm bunk, three solid meals a day, and medical treatment, or stay on the street and cadge whatever voluntary charity they can.

      2. Normally intelligent people look at problems like homelessness, note that the current “solution” is not actually solving squat, and then try another approach.

        Our autistic elites double- and triple-down on what’s not working, and then wonder why, oh why do we have more and more homeless people wandering the streets…

        1. Answer is that people dependent on government will vote for those politicians who will give them the biggest handouts. It is an utterly cynical ploy by the leftists for power.

        2. That is because the highly educated understand that only by addressing the “root conditions” can you fully extract a living from treating a problem.

          There is a reason these people rail against the drug companies for treating symptoms rather than curing illnesses.

      3. Oh, I’ve got at least one leftie acquaintance who likes to contend that it would be less expensive to give each homeless person a house. Free of property taxes, I assume. And I think assign each a full-time social worker, at least to each who doesn’t seem capable of managing his own affairs,.

        1. Ever ask that acquaintance how long (on average) those houses would remain up to code?

          Of course, the one thing which we can know is that both the recipient of that house and the attendant social worker would vote to continue in office that supporter of extracting funds from the productive and transferring them to the unproductive.

          I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a social welfare program.

          Okay, not really true: one useless man is no longer called a disgrace as that is judgmental and injurious to his self-esteem.

          1. This. i was going to post this, but Am too exhausted.
            Look, even soemone who is just ‘stupid at housekeeping” I watched him destroy successive apartments over 20 years. The level of fuckedupdness of homeless? The street would be better within a month.

          2. Forum acquaintance. Relatively conservative forum. So he’s one of the lefties who’s actually relatively reasonable, exceptionally willing to engage with the opposition as people.

            So people who know him better than I do and presumably care about him bring it up just about every time. And he just does it again later.

        2. The Canadian federal government does this on northern Indian reservations. Everybody gets a free house and a free social worker. Also free school, free medical and dental.

          It is an astounding, unbelievable catastrophe. When you know how much money gets spent, you can’t believe how bad their lives are. Its as if there was a fire in a crowded building, and the government workers formed a bucket brigade to deliver gasoline to the heart of the blaze.

          1. I’ve been watching some of that mess from down here. Ye gads. The “genocide of native women” is somehow the fault of Ottowa, not the people on the Reserves who are killing or otherwise making women disappear? Um, hold on just a minute…

            1. You are racist because culture.

              Seriously, you can tell I’m naive because I’m a little surprised to hear about a reservation or reservations being so messed up, even considering all the other factors I was probably aware of.

              Does Canada do the same thing the US does with tribal governments?

              1. “Does Canada do the same thing the US does with tribal governments?”

                If you mean “play along with the graft” then yes. You can tell which house is the chief’s by the this-year-model pickup truck and 85 inch television.

                Those houses may not have front doors or working plumbing, but by God every one of them has a big-screen TV.

            2. Oh, you heard about that? I’m surprised, that type of news generally doesn’t get heard in the USA.

              Yes, the “genocide” against native women. I’ve ignored the whole thing as hard as I possibly can. Not because I don’t like native women, but because its just another propaganda exercise by the Liberal Party of Canada. Whenever they start talking about smallpox blankets it is time to turn off the radio.

              Funny how crappy a genocide it is, when there’s still plenty of Indians wandering around and they’re all perfectly fine. Funny how Indian women -leave- the reserve and come to White Man cities to escape the abuse. I’m told being a hooker in Calgary (which is dangerous and horrible, make no mistake) is actually a safer and healthier lifestyle than living on a reserve north of Ft. McMurray. Longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality.

            3. If those people were capable of agency they wouldn’t be on the Reservation, therefore whatever happens to them cannot be their fault.

              It is funny (peculiar, not Hah-ha) how often such circumstances recur.

            4. Yeah, I never figured out how the “Highway of Tears”, which is essentially a local (if nasty) crime issue, became a major federal level issue. I mean, what legal change is needed to deal with it?

        3. Recalling that every state has several closed down military bases(many of which still have existing barracks and mess halls, etc.); it seems to me that a solution could be found in transporting these “homeless” to said bases – after re-opening them and upgrading as necessary. House them and feed them and take care of their medical problems using something run by the surgeon general’s office.
          And lastly teach them self-discipline – the hard way if necessary. Offer vocational training in various trades to those interested in a get-out-of-jail ticket. And they stay there until they die or become functional.
          Of course this is obviously too cruel a solution so better they should die in the streets of the various medieval diseases that are making come-backs in those happy little towns.
          I know for damn sure if I was living in one of those cities and someone in my family came down with typhus, typhoid, plague, TB, small pox or whatever, officials would start finding heavy-metal pills in their diets.

          1. They have been looking at doing exactly that. Ft Sill is one of the bases they have been looking at, and that is part of what started the ‘concentration camp’ mania, because in WWII, one of the Japanese internment camps was at Ft Sill

      4. Most are not homeless. They are street people. That is, they voluntarily make the street their home.

    2. Hey, stop insulting autistic people.

      Seriously, though, what’s going on is that we’re witnessing the triumph of the credentialed and uneducated, and they’re demonstrating what happens when that occurs. (Side note, in a lot of ways, Trump is the revenge of the educated but uncredentialed.)

      1. Yeah, basically my reaction.

        A ‘friend’ is some sort of high functioning autistic, with some very strong personality traits pushing them in the direction of technocracy. Which is basically this thing of rule by ‘experts’ who are allegedly high intelligence and all sorts of educated. Said ‘friend’ has, he’ll admit through believing the wrong assumptions initially, used intelligence and analytical ability to thoroughly convince himself that the assumptions are wrong.

        Since the ‘friend’ is the lens through which I most strongly understand autism, you can understand why I don’t quite think Kirk has identified the most important elements classifying the opposition. Of course, it may be that he is largely correct, and sampling bias has screwed me up.

        1. Autism for me is the curse of Cassandra.

          I can see the solution to many problems immediately. They’re -obvious-, painfully so. And in every single organization I’ve ever been part of, nobody listens. Not once. I live surrounded by a sea of deaf idiots.

          But the crowning glory is that very often, long after I’ve been fired/quit/walked off in a rage, I hear that they’re doing exactly what I fucking well told them to do. Sometimes they paid a consultant to re-tell them what I told them for free.

          Sometimes these are simple little things, like where to put the garbage can. (Yes, you can be fired over where to put the garbage can. That company went out of business later.) Sometimes big things like using a particular physical therapy technique on a particular type of patient.

          For people like me, self employment is the only avenue with any hope for satisfaction. Because in self employment, if you solve the problem you get the money, and your employees have to do what you tell them. They argue, they complain, but they DO it and when it works they have to wear the egg on their face.

          The biggest problem smart people have is realizing that other people can be smart too. Particularly the competition. I collect smart ideas and solutions as hard as I can, its a reminder I’m not alone.

          1. “The biggest problem smart people have is realizing that other people can be smart too. Particularly the competition. I collect smart ideas and solutions as hard as I can, its a reminder I’m not alone.”

            What I’m getting at is a reciprocal of that: “The biggest problem people who do well on tests have is thinking that everyone else who does well on tests is as smart as they are…”.

            Smart is as smart does; if “smart” produces results that you’d expect from “stupid”, then… Is it really “smart”?

            1. I’ve run into the problem of people thinking I am smart (or, in other situations, thinking I am trying to PLAY smart) because I’ve a large vocabulary and frequently employ sesquipedalian terminology.

              I typically take pains to demur, explaining that the vocabulary is simply an artifact of a peculiar type of retentive memory and too much time spent doing crossword puzzles to fill time in a somewhat unchallenging job.

              I am smart, by some definitions of smart, but that has led me to understand the limitations of smartness and of the distinctions between being smart, being knowledgeable, and being wise. As Socrates observed, the beginning of wisdom is recognition of how little you know. In my observations, folks who need to be seen as smart rarely pay attention to that.

              1. That’s exactly where I’m coming from, and you would be dead in line with my own self-assessment when it comes to my own intelligence levels. I’m not actually all that bright, in terms of things I consider indicative of real intelligence.

                But, people have been telling me I’m “smart” because of things I really don’t find that hard, while actual “smarts”, in terms of real-life success at solving problems and task performance…? That eludes me, and those things have proven to be demonstrably hard for me to work out.

                Meanwhile, I keep noticing a lot of these people that I’m told “aren’t smart” are much, much better at thinking on their feet, and dealing with the world around them than I’ll ever be. Especially when it comes to the whole “people factor”.

                Granted, I can do some things better than they can, but that doesn’t mean squat when it comes to emulating them.

              2. “Sesquipedalian vocabulary.”

                I do not come across as smart.

                My reading vocabulary is relatively large, or I can infer meaning from proper use context. My verbal retention word and pronunciation skills, are lousy to horrible. Not getting better with age, either.

                Add to the above the inability, or the inclination to just listen in large groups. Partly because above. Partly because by the time my thoughts are ready to be spoken, the topic has moved on. If I do get to actually participate, stumbling over words, becomes the topic … It is frustrating. Hey, even at over 60, figure I’ve got another 30 years or more to figure it out …

    3. The Emperor ain’t wearing a stitch, yo…

      But he identifies as being clothed, so who are you to judge him, you cis-textile peasant!

    4. Take a look at Detroit

      Detroit is a remarkable success story, developing an incredible level of industrial production out of nearly nothing. It not only perfected mass industry it supplied the incredible arsenal that, in WWII not only armed America but supplied Britain and the Soviet Union with the material needed to win the war.

      Of course, men like Henry Ford and William Knudsen learned industrial manufacturing from the shop floor up, without benefit of college educations. But after WWII ended their reign as Detroit’s industrial leaders the automobile makers looked for and hired educated persons to manage their businesses.

    5. I’m not sure what you’re talking about, precisely, Kirk. The left hates and has banned IQ tests pretty much my entire life, in terms of school, employment, etc.

      1. Mmmm… I never mentioned anything at all about ideology. Intentionally.

        Because, this isn’t an issue of right vs. left, although the left does exhibit more of the syndrome than the right does, for whatever reason.

        The issue I’m trying to get at is that there has been this entire shift in the culture since about the 1880s, and much of it stems from the idea that everything can be reduced to a college class, and taught in an academic environment, while ignoring the practical side of things.

        It’s a vice that we fall prey to everywhere, not just on the ideological left/right axis.

        Root of the problem is that we got this idea, which is a perversion of Binet’s original line of thinking about the subject of intelligence, BTW, that IQ was a quality related to real-world ability. And, because of that, we’ve warped our society into alignment with those ideas. Consider this: We validate the idea that the commonly used IQ tests are a proxy and predictor for real-world success and intelligence. Are they, though?

        Stop and examine the idea, and how it proceeds through the system: A child is tested, and that child does really well on the test. So, we tell that kid “Hey, you’re really smart…”, and then we track that kid into “advanced studies” (if the system is working as conceived, which a lot of the time, I agree that it ain’t’int…), where the young intellect is exposed to more of the same, geared towards their specific sort of abstract intelligence. Success at the test means more of the same, more testing validating their prowess at test-taking, and opening more and more gates to higher education, which is yet another environment geared towards abstract thinking. Then, upon completion of the education process, the world looks at the tests, the success in that environment, and then offers the successful test-taker an elevated position in society.

        Nowhere have we injected a phase where real-world evaluation or experience that might teach judgment and wisdom to these savants. There is no real practicum, except for a limited sort that we impose on medical students.

        We test for IQ, track for IQ, treat preferentially for IQ, and then point to the obvious self-fulfilling prophecy when we say “But, look–High-IQ test scores correlate so well with real-world success…”. It’s a circular process; a kid who does really well at taking tests is almost guaranteed to do well in life, simply because of those scores.

        Which don’t say squat about said individual’s judgment, wisdom, or acumen. Which, if you look at the majority of our institutions, we are sorely lacking at all levels.

        I think Binet had it right; he was only assessing a fraction of what constitutes intelligence. He cautioned against over-reliance on what he was testing for, and I think he was right, because our abuse of the concept has created this self-referential world around us, where the essentially autistic hold much more sway than they should. We’ve all heard the saw: “That idea is so stupid that only an intellectual could believe it…”.

        Well, guess what? We’ve created a world wrapped around these people’s warped abilities, and because we don’t have good tests for the other qualities we poorly define as “common sense”, we’ve put far too much weight on the idea that everything in the world is reducible to a set of things we can think our way around.

        Intellect, scholarship, and the academy are all good things, but like everything, must be taken in moderation. We’ve lent them far too much weight, and because of that, we’ve created this situation where the sort of people who do that kind of thing well have far too much sway in running the world we’ve built around them. Some problems are amenable to the academic approach, the “thinking man’s solution”. Quite a few are not, and what we’ve been doing is applying a rapier to jobs that really require axes.

        It is not an issue of ideology, but I think you can make a case that the left is far more prone to putting on the blinders and “believing really hard” about the essentially and fundamentally wrong. But, the right does the same damn thing, and just like the left, fails utterly to step back and evaluate the reality of result, and then modify approach and behavior.

        Some will read this and dismiss it as “anti-intellectualism”. It isn’t–I respect and honor the scholar and the intellectual, probably more so than the average person does. I come from that world; they’re my people.

        But, I’m also a man of pragmatism and practical knowledge; I don’t put on blinders and say “Yeah, I’m liberal/conservative/libertarian, so I believe X/Y/Z…”, and frame everything around that. I look at the question “Is this working…? Yes? OK, maybe that approach is valid; let’s keep an eye on it and see if that’s still true in a year, a decade, a century…”. The reciprocal of that is that I look at what isn’t working, and say “No, this is clearly erroneous… I don’t know why, the theory seems right, but… It ain’t working. Try something else…”.

        Modern society has elevated the wrong sort of over-intellectualized thinking and academic approach to things, over pure pragmatism and common sense. You rather get the feel that they’d rather keep on believing in things that don’t work, rather than seriously re-evaluate their basic premises and approaches.

        Which, if you pick up the classification manual for mental illness/dysfunction, tracks very well with the autistic range of behavioral issues. We’ve managed to institutionalize a sort of general autism, and nobody questions any of it. Source? Well, look at what we test for, select for, and then reward for no real reason; these people don’t produce things that actually, y’know… Work. But, because they do really well on the tests, we keep elevating them to positions where they don’t belong, because they have really poor judgment.

        I know a bunch of people who are not that testably smart; were you to tell them “Hey, I want you to solve this problem…”, they’d come up with something very common-sensical. Might not be smart, might not be something you could reduce to a pretty theory, but it would have the signal advantage of actually working. A person of moderate intelligence would never buy into the ideological set of BS that the various homeless advocates have–They’d all balk at the very idea that most of those folks are what the advocates say, victims. Instead, they’d be much more likely to go “Yeah, lot of that stuff is their own doing… All this crap you’re proposing is just gonna enable them, and cost the rest of us a lot of money… Not to mention, it’s a damn crock that you’re gonna let these junkies and alkies ruin our parks and turn our streets into open-air sewers… Nope; not gonna follow your plan, friend…”.

        The trouble is that we’ve elevated the abstract intellectual into positions where we need wisdom, judgment, and practical experience to inform decisions, and most of those intellectual giants haven’t got an iota of any of those three qualities. Which isn’t surprising, since we’ve been selecting and conditioning for the exact opposite since around 1880.

        It’s not the ideology; it’s the approach, and the worship of the abstract.

        1. For those whose eyes glazed over, here’s the TL:DR version:

          We’ve turned over too much managerial power to those whose first thought on seeing a successful demonstration is, “Okay, it works in practice but will it work in theory?”

          The Left gives greater weight to this certification because the Left has seized the High Ground of the certification process. Examples available on request.

          High IQ is valuable, but as with any other tool, only to the extent its use is trained and disciplined. A sword is merely a crowbar with a convenient handle in the untrained hand.

          It is commonplace in all professions (and in many fields falling short of profession) that a new hire with ink not yet dry degree needs a period of time to grasp the realities of that profession as opposed to what was taught in the classroom.

          1. RES, that’s a very succinct summation of a part of what I’m getting at, but…

            I’m not really getting across what I’m trying to get at, and that’s a part of what you’re not including in your summary.

            Not everything in the world is amenable to analysis or something that one can then apply the tools of the academy and the intellect towards dealing with; indeed, attempting to do so is just going to create more issues and a bigger damn mess.

            And, we’ve steadily been turning over more and more control to people whose sole toolset for understanding and dealing with the world is that of the abstract analytic and academic, while denigrating the sort of “tribal knowledge” approaches to problem-solving that come up through the rank-and-file folks that are actually out doing the work.

            You see this issue with all too many organizations; they have to hire expensive consultants to tell them things that they could have learned, had the products of our intellectual elite factories just thought to go out and ask the guys and girls on the factory floor. Who may well know things that could keep the company solvent, but since they lack the credentials, they’ll not only never be asked, they’d be ignored were they to say anything at all to the anointed ones…

            Through the entire process that starts with IQ testing in grade school, we’ve managed to effectively recapitulate the old aristocracies, with many of the same self-referential vices. It ain’t a meritocracy unless there’s some real merit in the membership…

            The left is more prone to this, but it’s a vice of the right, just as much.

            1. I think I agree, but quibble somewhat about the terms.

              Technocracy is a rather common sort of magical thinking after the industrial revolution. Rule by ‘experts’, or essentially the belief that the techniques of industrial engineering are exactly as effective at managing quality issues in humans as they are in managing quality issues in widgets. Or rather, engineers and other ‘experts’ tend to fail to understand how much less useful such things are with humans, and laymen don’t understand how limited the tools are even with widgets. Some self identified ‘experts’ have both failures of understanding.

              Anyway, the switch to grade and subject matter expert teachers from one room all grades all subjects teachers was basically hugely influenced by the belief that by specializing the expertise you would get super efficient at teaching. At best, a lot of these experts have a lot of experience with say, eighth graders studying English, so that and a few adults are their monkeysphere, and they have a warped perspective on humanity, what makes a whole human being, and what sanity is. At worst, we ought to ban the current teachers from further contact with children, shut down the schools, and throw the kids at unemployed blue collar workers.

              I’ve met professors I’ve thought worth learning from in their specialty, but I think I can learn from everyone. Certainly, there are more than a few professors that I trust you more on for a wide range of issues.

              You pay attention to people outside of academia, you observe, and you think.

              1. Rule by ‘experts’ essentially hits the “listen to the priests/aristocrats” slot in the human programming. Most of us feel our own insecurities and want to believe that ‘experts’ exist. They are a security binkie, comforting us in our need for reassurance.

                Few of us recognize that an expert is merely somebody who has mastered the conventional wisdom — and is thus nearly incapable of new thinking as that would imperil his credentials.

          2. “We’ve turned over too much managerial power to those whose first thought on seeing a successful demonstration is, ‘Okay, it works in practice but will it work in theory?'”

            Purely to be persnickety — and as an example of someone who does tend to think this way — I’ll cavil that wanting to know why something works (i.e., knowing what the theory of the practice is) even after being shown that it does work is actually a very relevant question, most times. Because a demonstration only proves that something works under the conditions of that demonstration.

            If you expect or want those conditions to change (and conditions always do change, sooner or later), knowing what to change in the process so that it maintains the same outcome is critical. I freely concede that there are things you learn from experience that no credential-granting schooling can provide you, but I’ve seen from both ends the process that resists long-term improvements because of reluctance to endure a short-term learning or experimentation curve.

            1. I fear you may have overlooked the point of the jest: there are people who will reject something that works because they cannot perceive the underlying theory.

              The essence of science is to revise theories in the face of experimental evidence, not revise experimental evidence to conform to theory. The latter is how AGW falls out of the Science orbit and into the Faith orbit.

              1. I agree entirely about revising theory in the face of evidence. I’m just pointing out that asking why, or whether, something presented as evidence actually qualifies as evidence isn’t a bad question.

                It’s not “rejecting something that works” to ask, “Okay, I’ve seen that work here, now, for you, when the wind is north-north-west; please explain why it will also work tomorrow, elsewhere, for me, when the wind is southerly. And I reserve the right to distrust your solution if you won’t do anything except insist it doesn’t matter and I don’t need to know that.”

                1. If a thing works, it works. Period. Or rather, it works under specified conditions and particular circumstances, not applicable in all jurisdictions and your mileage may vary.

                  Knowing why it works, grasping the underlying theory, is essential to developing broader understanding and applicability (see Seaton, Richard, on the volatility of certain platinum wastes), to truly develop the principles involved.

                  But, again, the joke is intended as mockery of those who reject a working demonstration on the grounds that current theory fails to support it, as if Pasteur’s vaccinations should be rejected for failing to conform to the Theory of Humours of the Body.

                  I must say that, if your intention was merely to point out that “asking why, or whether, something presented as evidence actually qualifies as evidence isn’t a bad question” you’ve phrased your comments remarkably poorly. It seems somewhat perpendicular to the original comment without benefit of using a turn signal.

                  1. Apologies, I didn’t mean to be aggravating, and I’ll freely admit to being prone to missing jokes.

                    I suppose my problem is that I’ve been a long-term reader about hope-to-be-breakthroughs like the EMDrive or various forms of LENR, so I’ve seen a lot of cases where attempts to make sure that the “working demonstration” actually is working is treated as the kind of “you’re rejecting your own eyes in favour of the establishment theory” response being here decried. So as a result I tend to be just as instinctively resistant to blanket evidence-trumps-theory claims as I am to the reverse, because while evidence (once properly verified) is objective, the people who find it and look at it never are, not completely.

                    To avoid further aggravation I will let this be my last word on the point, if you wish.

                    1. I realized what the mis-communication was about when it occurred to me that “cold fusion” was a perfect example of the situation you were describing.

        2. Kirk said: “Modern society has elevated the wrong sort of over-intellectualized thinking and academic approach to things, over pure pragmatism and common sense.”

          Its easy to blame people with Aspergers for stuff they didn’t do, and this is one of the classics. The Practical Man vs. the Ivory Tower Nebbish.

          Here’s what actually happened. The Left, starting after WWI, infiltrated all the academic societies, usurping their hard-earned social respectability while destroying what made them respectable.

          Is there anything at all about current climate science that is scientific? Or is it all bullshit that the Leftists are relying on the Cloak of Sciencyness to make believable?

          Is there any honest scholarship in Leftist Feminist Theory? Or are they relying on being in the same building where actual scholars used to work 50 years ago to make themselves seem more legit?

          Currently Google is having a pogrom against all the Aspies like James Damore who dare question the value of Diversity! in the high-tech workplace. Fucking Aspergers dorks simply will NOT get with the program, they’d rather point to the -facts- about who writes more and better code than play along with the political game. I expect that the really talented engineers and designers have since pulled the eject lever from Google, Apple, Facebook etc.

          Lemme tell you something Kirk. Modern society was created by and for the Normal People. Its the same as every other society ever. But every single thing, every system, every tool, every machine you use every day was invented by some Aspie, and he was probably a Scot. Except Rudolph Diesel, he was a German dude.

          Tell you something else, in most businesses and corporations, people of high IQ are -hunted- like rats and booted out as fast as possible. They do not want smart people around, because most of what they’re doing is bullshit and smart people figure that out very fast.

          Those of us who dwell out here on the second and third sigmas of the bell curve watch what “Normal” people do and what they consider important, and we marvel that you’re not all dead by now.

          1. I’d quibble about every invention, and there are a lot of good engineers/inventors/designers who are not Scots. Furthermore, engineering is a skillset non-aspies can learn, and there are technical problems too big for one guy, no matter how good. Normal engineers can be perfectly effective on team projects, and can learn skillsets to make teams work where the autistics do their thing, and the more obnoxious normals are in places where they can’t make too much trouble.

            Pete Grant recommends Townshead’s Up the Organization as a management text. Townshead has a specific medicine he is selling, but if he is a correct, you would expect every organization larger than around two hundred to become a screwed up bureaucracy. Quite a lot of people are employed by larger organizations. Screwed up bureaucracies are places you would expect to kill effective tech development team cultures most of the time.

            1. “Townshead has a specific medicine he is selling, but if he is a correct, you would expect every organization larger than around two hundred to become a screwed up bureaucracy.”

              Something said to me once by a very good executive: “Once you are running an organization past a certain size, you have to remember that what you are seeing is like watching a movie where all you are *really* seeing is maybe every thousandth frame.”

              1. I’d put it even lower than 200, and also say that there is a bit of a time effect in there, with regards to the founders leaving the place to their successors.

                Hewlett and Packard ran a really good company, one that got big and successful. Whatever “magic” they had, they were able to keep HP what it was, successful, for a long time.

                However, giant comma, that same organization later put Carly Fiorina in charge of itself, and that speaks to a certain inherent internal flaw to the whole thing–They recruited her, trained her, and then put her in charge of everything. At which point the plane flew into a hillside.

                Now you would probably be right in saying that things were well off-course before she was made CEO, but the fact remains–She was at the controls when the plane crashed. This speaks to a certain, ah… Failure, in the selection process, wouldn’t you say…?

                1. and i gotta disagree, it was crashed before she was CEO. HP’s business division is doing ok and their workstation division still produces great machines- their consumer division, which is largely what used to be compaq’s consumer division, it more problematic

          2. Out here in the real world, there’s a fairly common syllogism we use, that’s summed up as this: “If it appears “stupid”, and it works… It ain’t stupid.”.

            The flip side to that one? “If it appears “smart”, and it doesn’t work… It ain’t smart.”.

            What I’m getting at here isn’t a value judgment, it’s an assessment of performance and effect.

            And, what I’m advocating for isn’t a judgment against those we’ve mistakenly deemed “smart”, because it’s not their fault that they’re functionally idiots that can’t do the tasks we’ve set them to across society, it’s a call for an examination of result, coupled with accountability.

            People keep telling me the Emperor is wearing the most exquisitely tailored high fashion, but from where I sit, he’s buck naked and waving his wing-wong in our faces while insisting we pay the bills for his tailors.

            The ability to take a test and do well on it is not a sign of virtue or wisdom, and it doesn’t really mean much past the fact that you can do well on it. The last hundred years have been a litany of horror because we keep making the mistake of thinking we’re testing for something, and then acting on the results of that test by rewarding what we’re testing for, while never going down to the other end of the factory floor and “checking the work”.

            Which is why I’d submit that whatever the hell we’re measuring with the various IQ tests, it ain’t actually the quality we’re looking for or thinking of when we say “intelligent”. Stupid is as stupid does, and if you persist in following a course of action that produces failure… You may have done really well on the tests, baby, but you’re actually not all that bright.

            1. I’d submit that whatever the hell we’re measuring with the various IQ tests …

              Shucks, kirk, that is obvious, as any consideration of the calibration mechanism should reveal: we’re measuring the ability to do well on IQ tests. Those supposedly measure ability to perform academically, but as academic performance has been increasingly isolated from “real world” effects and geared to correspond to IQ test results … well, is it any wonder we’ve got so many smart people with their heads up their fundaments?

              Freshly minted college graduates are the second lieutenants of the business world.

          3. in most businesses and corporations, people of high IQ are -hunted- like rats

            Eliminated because they are smart enough spot the flaws in the marketers’ logic … and are Aspie enough to publicly say so.

            Insert random Dilbert comic, as that theme is ubiquitous there.

            1. I’d submit that what the “system” is identifying and rewarding as “intelligent” actually… Isn’t. And, when the system encounters actual demonstrated intelligence and excellence, because it doesn’t fit their erroneous mold, they identify and react to it as heresy.

              A lot of us odds are so used to doing well on tests and so forth that we don’t comprehend that it’s actually possible to do well on those things, and not be “of us”. Those are the people who wind up as the credentialed and conformist identified “genius” types that keep munging everything up, because “expert”.

              I’m not arguing against real intelligence; I’m pointing out that the tests and the rest of the regime isn’t actually defining it correctly, identifying it, or rewarding it. Instead, it identifies a set of easily testable propositions, rewards those, and never bothers to go out and compare real-world performance/results to the predictions.

              Doesn’t matter where you are, credentials matter. I’ve seen cases on jobsites where a guy who’s got thirty years of experience moving earth and doing heavy construction noticed issues with the drainage plan he was building, pointed those issues out to the general contractor, who went to the engineers behind it all and said “Hey, my earthmoving guy sees issues…”. He and the “earthmoving guy” were shut right the hell down, and told “We expert. You stupid. Do what we say.”.

              Right now, there’s a multi-million dollar lawsuit going on because the drainage plan is doing exactly what the “earthmoving guy” said it would, and not actually, y’know… Draining. The calculations show that it should, but the calcs are apparently wrong.

              Ran into this innumerable times in the Army, as well–If your credentials and/or rank don’t qualify you to pronounce on a subject, it doesn’t matter what you’re saying or how right you might be: You’re not the anointed, you’re not worth listening to. If the anointed ones say that the sun will rise in the west, then it will rise in the west. Until it doesn’t.

              We’ve been pouring the oil over the wrong people, TBH, and until we recognize that fact, we’re gonna have problems.

          4. Same in the arts, btw, on hunted up and booted out. We say and do inconvenient things. The world is not of us.
            This is what I was trying to object with.

            1. I’d say that it’s more a case of the “mass” identifying the wrong things as “intelligent” and “talented”, and then reacting poorly when confronted with actual examples of either trait…

              You and I may do really well on standardized tests; that does not imply, however, that everyone else who does well on those tests is actually, y’know, all that bright. On paper, I see a lot of really smart, really talented people: In reality, a lot of those people don’t actually produce much of value.

              Thus my contention that the paper really isn’t useful for identifying either actual talent or smarts.

    6. > “IQ testing”

      I was smack in the middle of the generation of children that got Big Testing. Over the years I took everything from (literally) the Rorschach to the ASVAB, plus all of the normal IQ tests, the MMPP, and… a lot of tests.

      My main take-aways were:

      A) the test designers were always looking for something specific
      B) they only tested on things that were easy for them to grade

      I colored in lots of dots, circled multiple-choice answers, and so forth. Stuff they could hold a punched cardboard shield over and count all the “correct” answers.

      1. Yeah, education technocracy. The important things are not measureable and the measureable things are not important.

        It is surprising people don’t come out of public school more incompetent, and probably the reason is intact families.

      2. Most tests are designed by and for people who do well on tests.

        And, “the rest of us” haven’t paid attention to the fact that the whole thing is basically circular reasoning–You do well on the tests, you take more of them, and you get tracked into an environment that is tailor-made for test takers and test makers, who are then adjudged virtuous and worthy of entrusting vast decision-making powers with.

        And, to validate this? The test makers point to the “fact” that the kids who do really well on the tests do really well in the schools (which are designed for them, and their peculiar skills), and are then “successful” in later life, in that they get good jobs are are paid well.

        Thing is, they got those jobs and salaries based not on actual performance, but in most cases, because they did really well on tests and then got the credentials to prove that. Real-world results or performance assessments aren’t included anywhere in all that.

        Note that I’m not saying that all of the test-takers are stupid or not worthy of trusting in positions of power and decision, but that the idea that they all are, automatically, is where we’ve gone wrong. You create a regime of artificialities, don’t be real surprised if things don’t work out when you take it out into the field and start getting results–There’s a critical feedback loop that needs to be emplaced, to where the results feed back into the system to provide validation that what you’re doing is working. Which, I point out, we really don’t have.

        Alexandria OC is a perfect example of a kid that “tested well”, along with most of the other “brights” that keep trying to immanentize the eschaton. The fact that they’re actually invoking the Gods of the Copybook Headings is something that utterly escapes them…

        1. Alex Cortez is perhaps not the best example of someone who would be considered particularly able within Academia. Wasn’t it something like a Bachelor’s from a for pay university in a not very impressive subject? Which served her so well working as a bartender?

          Cortez looks a lot like an affirmative action student too slow to realize that a preference for easy work might be of more importance in judging ability than people praising her intelligence because they are trying to welcome underrepresented students.

          Seriously, I do not see evidence of the ability and drive needed to get a master’s in education.

          Praise of Cortez’s educational accomplishments is less her stellar academic record, and more talking points and her cunning as a politician.

          1. You’re in a room with six people who didn’t go to college, and AOC: Who does everyone point to as being the “smart and educated one”?

              1. Well, yeah… Wallaby.

                If I was in the room, they’d point at me and say “Asshole”.

                It’s a talent. I’ve always made people uncomfortable and nervous. Mostly because I’m saying what I think, and not what they want to hear.

                1. The trick is to lay your minefield on the paths you know your opponent will tread, then sit back looking innocent and surprised when they blow themselves up.

                  1. I lack the base cunning and patience to do that. Character flaw, I know, but… I just can’t refrain from calling a spade a spade when someone tries telling me it’s a pitchfork. I’ve never been able to suffer rank stupidity when I encounter it in people I think shouldn’t be that dumb.

                    Funnily enough, I can muster up vast reserves of tolerance and patience with the actually mentally disabled folks I run into, like the girl down at the store who is Down’s Syndrome. I love talking to her, even if she asks the same questions that would get +20 Sarcasm from me if they came from a “normie”.

                    1. This reminds me of a psychological test that I took when applying for a job. Psych guy started the interview talking about stuff in general and after a while asked me what I considered to be my greatest weakness and I responded that I didn’t suffer fools lightly. Ten or fifteen minutes later he asked me what I considered to be my greatest strength and I told him I didn’t suffer fools lightly. Shortly there after he concluded his questioning…
                      I got the job – 34 positions – 3500 initial applicants.

                  2. “they’d point at me and say “Asshole”. It’s a talent.”

                    I know! Right?

                    I’m even worse, if I care enough to get involved, because I phrase my contribution as a question. Which they have to answer. Not only that, I have the talent to phrase my questions so they have to answer the way that makes sense. Translation, they end up saying their own theory is “stupid.” I don’t have to do it for them. Then I have the unmitigated gall to solemnly rephrase the fact they verbally iterated their theory was stupid; with quotes. Can’t do it on a debate stage. But it has won me friends (yes, really) that were being shouted down. Those doing the shouting, eh, not so much.

                    One of the reasons I’ve come around to team President Trump (VS “not her”.) Not only is he doing (or at least visibly trying) what he said he’d do. He’s been starting to use their arguments against them, in ways that show how much they’ve drank the Koolaid and are trying to get everyone else to commit suicide.

          2. All Out Crazy earned her degree at Boston University. As noted by Michelle Malkin:

            Four years, 52 credits and nearly $300,000 later, the school promises that BU economics majors will depart “with a firm understanding of core microeconomic and macroeconomic theory” and the “empirical skills that are essential to applying economic reasoning in our increasingly data-driven world.”

            I would pay money to see (retired) economics professor Dick Armey* debate her.

            *or Walter J Williams or Thomas Sowell, but PETA would likely get an injunction to stop it

            1. She’s got the credentials, though… Were you to argue with her as a well-read layman, in front of an audience of your typical fellow Americans from the classes of the supposed “intelligentsia”, they’d look at those credentials, and say “Well, she has a degree in Economics… She must know what she’s talking about…”.

              The Rest of Us(TM), on the other hand, would be looking at the actual arguments and facts presented, ignoring source.

              Which goes to the problem I’m laying out for y’all: It’s not the intelligence testing itself, it’s the false credence it lends those who do Really Well on Tests, who then go on to get Really Nice Credentials from Really Good Schools, and who then produce Really Stupidly Bad Results.

              Gotta be honest with you–If the rest of the dolts and non-dolts who graduated from Boston U. had a lick of sense, they’d be suing the school into the ground, for having conferred a degree on AOC in the first place.

              Because, I’m telling you, she’s single-handedly driving down the value of anything from that school for at least the next two generations. I wouldn’t hire anyone with a degree from that place to dig ditches, let alone pull shots in a coffee bar. Manage finance? LOL… Not. A. Chance. In. Hell.

  20. Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

    “Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. … The power of the one needs the stupidity of the other. The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, for instance, the intellect, suddenly atrophy or fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up establishing an autonomous position toward the emerging circumstances. The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy human beings.”

    Written while he was in prison awaiting execution.

  21. My expectation is that the next time a Democrat is elected President. their first act will be to declare a blanket amnesty for all illegal immigrants. If they have Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, they will make them all instant citizens or otherwise give them the right to vote right away. If they just have the Senate, they will appoint Judges and Justices who will declare through judicial fiat that non-citizens are entitled to vote.
    They will do anything for power. Note the commie who just got elected to town council (I believe it was in Colorado) who declared that her goal now that she has been elected was to institute COMMUNISM ‘by any means necessary”. THIS is the modern Democratic Party.

  22. I am so tired of dealing with this madness and these people. It’s like listening to Joe Pesci in “Casino”-“But in the end, we fucked it all up. It should have been so sweet, too. But it turned out to be the last time that street guys like us were ever given anything that fuckin’ valuable again.”

    San Francisco, yea it’s a boom town. Boom and bust cycles, happens. But, everybody pretends that it’s only the boom that happens, and never the bust. I remember in the mid-90s, when tech companies would throw impromptu parties with cheap beer on empty floors in massive office complexes. Now? They would be scared shitless if you even looked at booze or even the slightest blue in a joke. And, you can’t find an empty floor anywhere that size or that…flexible for love or money. LA…the climate is so good there that you don’t have the normal attrition of homeless that would die off from cold weather and such issues, so the numbers grow and grow.

    And, bit by bit, they let the people in that they were just “helping out” and were able to make the right expressions and the right sounds…and now we have a San Francisco that is more concerned about vaping and providing clean places to shoot up heroin than trying to get them off heroin or keeping people from sleeping on main streets in public. Or an LA that is having issue with typhus and a possible outbreak of plague. Yes, plague.

    And, they are so many people that will not do anything, because they are scared of being told by the people they live with that they’re “bad people.” I’ve got friends that I have never watched my tongue with that I am now scared that if I say the wrong thing, I’ll be lynched. I will be kicked out of the few social groups that I have-social groups that were formerly of the people that were not the most socially adept.

    For God’s sake, when A role playing game website and a knitting website are more concerned about being “woke” than what they’re supposed to be a part of.

    I’ve had so many people tell me that I need to leave California, let this place sink.

    My reply? “We need to fight here and now, and push all this madness into the ocean to drown, or else it will grow and it will follow us. And, those of us that are reasonably sane are either going to be organizing firing squads or being put up against the wall to be shot.”

    1. Agreed on the California bit. Running away won’t solve the problem. And as is frequently noted even here, California’s problems are spreading to other states.

  23. The people who call them concentration camps are the same ones who enthusiastically supported the caravans of illegal aliens trying to come to the US. By their logic, they are exactly the same as the Nazis who packed Jews into cattle cars.

    1. of course they enthusiastically supported them… until Trump offered to bus then to their districts…

  24. I had to stop following a long-time WordPress favorite because he wholeheartedly linked an “AOC is right” word vomit and the replies seemed to playing a game of oneupsmanship in the “Orange Man Bad” department. (For example, did you know that Ivanka Trump instagrams photos of her kids JUST because it contrasts with those poor unfortunate kids in Daddy Hitler’s camps? Me, neither!)

    I’d like to tell them stories from my little region (nearby city population 4,000). The most recent is that my parish now has a group fighting human trafficking. People sure like to focus on the poor kids in cages but ignore all the collateral damage of porous borders.

Comments are closed.