
Abbreviated Elements of How Democrats Have Ruined Everyone’s Political Prospects
by Bob the Fool
The fundamental issue is that the Democrats have deeply screwed themselves and everyone else over when it comes to dispute resolution.
Succession to a kingship becomes a more fraught issue a) the more power that the old king had b) the more that people fear that one of the potential new kings will be a crazier asshole to them.
The purpose of the American election system and the American formal legal system is in part to avoid all of the eternally returning ills of succession wars.
There are four ways that the current mess screws over everyone. A. Making the formal legal system look credible in terms of criminal conspiracy to defraud the public. B. Publicly impeaching the credibility of the elections, and making addressing issues seemingly impossible. C. Frauding in a shell of a man, who can additionally be seen as a democidal psychopath. D. Attempting to deny citizens of any recourse from the caprice of the tyranny.
JFK may well have stolen the 1960 election, but he was less obviously malicious towards Americans then Biden seems to be now.
Every element of this smells of communism. Communists are zero sum-ers, who see destruction on every path to their goals. They have no peace in them, and they give outsiders little hope for negotiating an end to communist depredations.
Basically, this is outside of the scope of what the constitution was designed to resolve, and is able to resolve. Constitution was designed to help resolve disputes of a just, moral, and religious population. A large enough sub population that is amoral, unjust, and outside of religious practice as the founders understood it is outside of scope.
There are basic questions of security in lives and property in this dispute, that create uncertainty about how little people have left to lose, and to how much they will retain even if they submit. Policies involved include covid, gun grabbing, climate change and ‘environmental’ constraint of food supply, protection of domestic terror soldiers, importation of foreign terror soldiers, and being investigated for terrorism for speaking criticism of school operations.
This amounts to a dispute between two or more sub-populations each with deeply internalized views. The communists are troubled by Christians, Jews, etc. not jumping to comply the way that the Outer Party does. The Christians, Jews, etc. are troubled by the pointless destruction and efforts to interfere with practice of faith. The Christians and Jews pray. The communists look for ways of ‘expressing power’ that will make the Christians and Jews turn away from the God of Abraham, and bow down to wind up golden statues.
There are still more available potential remedies than violence. But it increasingly seems like violence might be a remedy worth its costs, compared to costs of not seeking remedy by violence.
There are two problems essential to remedy by violence. One is that once continuing violence starts, it is unlikely to end before sufficient communists are dead. Two is that it will necessarily anger people, inspire more dispute, and then that it may be difficult to come to a peace deal agreeable to all survivors, which all parties will deliver on.
Democrat impeachment of Trump makes the theoretical powers and responsibilities of the presidency even more central to the meta dispute. Miley’s potential interdiction of Trump’s communications means that we cannot have complete confidence in the total mistruth of the Democrat claims. We can be confident in partial mistruth of Democrat claims, because Democrat claims are incompatible with the Constitution, and with any reading of Lincoln vs. Davis that is not a pro confederate reading. In particular, if a state of insurrection existed, the Presidency’s executive power can be used to authorize the unorganized militia to act. There was no insurrection, and it is unlikely that Trump tried to or wanted to authorize the organized or unorganized militia. Miley makes it impossible to be confident in this conclusion, because of the precedent of Lincoln authorizing the organized militia through the Department of War. If Democrat claims are partly true, then the Democrats who voted for Pelosi on Jan. 3. 2021 for the 117th Congress should have been barred from being seated during the 118th Congress currently in session. This creates significant ambiguity of law, that can only partly be mitigated by Trump serving another term as President and thus by his actions confirming a lack of intent to suppress insurrections on January 6th.
It is quite possible that peaceful courses of remedy may be sufficient to address these matters. However, a great many persons in a great many offices have contributed to mishandling events. Peaceful resolution going forward is likely to involve a great many persons, in some of these same offices, carefully and slowly over many years not further violating the norms and not further undermining trust. Some of these ‘offices’ of ‘power’ or influence are private or semi-private offices, that are currently apparently being held by idiots and destroyers. Replacement of these persons is a goal that a suitable president would not substitute for. Changing these persons for other persons is sometimes still open to the public, whether by formal or informal means.
The presidency has some applications to peaceful remedy, but is one necessary element of one of the violent means of addressing the dispute.
If the remedy is one of violence authorized by a president, of hanging many communists, then the public will expect a reinstatement of peace, which will involve resignation by politicians which have taken responsibility for carrying out the executions. A presidential candidate who is adequately prepared for current circumstances is also prepared to have a fairly early end to their political career.
So, there are basically a few more obvious possibilities with regard to current Republican candidates, based on their plans.
1. Establishment, is planning to resolve things by selling out to the Democrats, and is a moron who fails to understand that nothing delivered to the Democrats will satisfy the Democrats, or stop the Democrats from hammering at people.
2. Is planning to resolve things purely by peaceful means.
3. An actual potential second Lincoln.
Baked into this round of seeking nomination is that a) Democrat perseceutions and censorships mean that no potential Lincoln would be tolerated running on being a second Linoln b) establishment selling out means that many candidates are reasonably suspect as establishment sell outs. Furthermore, failure to understand that calculus of points 1, 2, and 3, and of public expectations, would itself be a fourth and disqualifying level of planning and preparations.
The Democrats are not willing to let Trump be, he is riding the tiger and cannot get off.
Every other contestant has that strike against them, that they could wait, and the strike of not being able deliver on the Trump third term element of peaceful resolution. If they do not see those two strikes, too stupid to qualify.
There is a critique of DeSantis, that for one test of making the replacements to allow for peaceful remedy, that he has not yet replaced at least 5 of the 6. I infer that he is thus establishement. The defense was made of DeSantis that my preferred level of remedy seeking is currently necessarily politically suicide. My feeling is that ‘political suicide’ is currently an inherent risk of presidential scale politics, and that a seriously risk averse politician should be willing to wait and let Trump take some of the damage by serving another term first.
The fifth plan is to let Trump go first, but use the opportunity to sharpen him by pettily holding him to account for all of his screw ups.
The cost of this plan is that it would be four more years of opportunity for new governors to make progress towards peaceful resolution, as well as for a potential Lincoln to better position themselves for that. It is immensely costly in opportunity for any governor who currently seems relatively good, but who also has establishment ties and perhaps sympathies.
A politician whose plan is more establishment selling out is the only one who fails to take a great deal of scrum into account. Planning for such scrum includes pricing Trump comments into things. Appeals to ‘muh gravitas’ are inherently invalid for any of the plans besides establishment sell out. Thus, those who are already appealing to ‘muh gravitas’ can go frustrate themselves.
Trump’s comments are because DeSantis is using proxies. The choice of proxies to me sounds a great deal like the ones an establishment candidate would choose. See ‘Mike Miller’ at Red State.
Peaceful remedies are preferable. Constitutional remedies are preferable. It is not clear that they are possible, nor will it be theoretically clear before the remedies are actually in place, and the disputes are again mostly resolved.
Post Script on the Intellectual Forecasts
I am greatly frustrated by all of the theoretical discussion which fails to give appropriately measured weight to a) Democrats have pretty badly screwed us by creating a difficult situation b) there is absolutely hope and the theoretical status quo is badly bankrupt, because many of ‘our’ theoretical spokesmen got us into the problems by being willfully blind. Any given theoretical explanation of a specific remedy is suspect.
Additionally, we should not first be taking counsel of trust in theoretical models, because the opposition is a cult of theoretical models. We should not first be looking to aggregate scale type answers, because the opposition is a cult that drives themselves nuts by obsessing about aggregate conclusions or guesses. One of the first steps to dealing with opposition information warfare looks a lot like ‘seeking spiritual remedy’ or ‘trusting in The Lord’, because we internally search for the Enemy’s hooks in us, try to remove them, and try to understand reality in light of having removed those hooks. The results of this industry are emotional, and become quite difficult to express in terms of purely intellectual theory. When you do express them in those terms, they very easily become a trap for the unwary.
Fundamentally, tertiary education is a major center of gravity here. Something like 60% have bachelors degrees, 30% have masters degrees, adn 2% have doctorates. The insane and out of contact with mainstream American culture producing the ‘scholarly’ results foundational to one side of these disputes is at the very most 2% of the population. In practice, it is a great deal fewer than 2%, because of a combination of discrimination in hiring faculty and in awarding tenure, and because of self selection by scholarly minds, who may conclude that either studying their problem of interest makes sense outside academia and no sense inside of academia, or that they will never be hired and retained for any faculty position, so that trying for such career is stupid. (The idjits who whine about 1% or 2% of wealth, and who are cheerfully silent about rule by a 2% of formal education can go frustrate themselves. (Modern tech has allowed, even when limited by leftist lawfare, a great and unusual amount of wealth, which combined with wealth of information makes independent scholarship far more practical than it previously was.)) The general assumption is that you invest, or waste part of your life on, a formal education, and then it ties you to a career path, the one it lets you start. Establishment theory intellectuals may be rote, have probably gone to university, may consider themselves deeply tied to the ‘conservative intellectual’ career path, and may be frightened of losing that career and of having to start another from scratch.
These would be the last people to have an accurate explanation if they have screwed themselves over by too obviously collaborating with Obamist Democrats to preserve the Bush faction inside the Republican Party.
Appendix: Notes on questions considered too briefly.
- JFK’s margin of ‘victory’ includes states where the Democrats may have been murdering to suppress the Republican vote. JFK ran on a pro segregation platform, to appeal to people who may have stolen elections by such means.
- The mainstream narrative is that the parties ‘switched places’. It is not clear that this ever actually happened.
- Modern historical narratives are carefully curated to ignore that the Democrats who implemented Segregation and Jim Crow had a massively partisan grudge against the Republican Party, and understood those policies as serving a partisan goal. The story often told is purely of racism, and no other motivations for the political actions are provided.
- Even if the murders with official sanction had ceased, people may have believed them still possible, and might have thus not cast a ballot for a candidate of their choice.
- The integrity of the 1960 election is in doubt.
- Soviets may have murdered JFK. Possibly to try to kill the space program.
- I’m angry about many of these basic questions of security, and more. I may have more to say in other essays in the future.
- Civil Wars suck. They really really suck. Once started, very difficult to start a really binding peace again.
- The test applied to DeSantis may be expanded on later, in another essay, for incumbent Republican Governors. This is about the letter signed by many Law School heads on January 12, 2021. Paul Caron, a Republican I now realize to be Establishment, bragged about signing this letter as a head of a law school. This was one element of my becoming extremely disenchanted with the Establishment Republicans, and becoming convinced that they are backstabbers, who would cheerfully see us all murdered. The theory of professional liability in this letter seems novel; Law faculty would have been widely condemned if in the aftermath of the Rodney King Riots, they had proposed that lawyers would refrain from defending blacks for fear of inspiring riots. The failure to also mention Marilyn Mosby’s misconduct (similar to the alleged misconduct) makes the ‘bipartisan’ letter a deeply partisan document. Furthermore, while as lawyers they may not realize this, they are likely not competent to know the facts of any electronic system’s security. (Without sufficient physical security chain of custody, verification of hardware and software security can be impossible if hostile state actors may be involved. Failure to ensure physical security directly made election integrity impossible to verify.)
- Another element was following several Republican Party aligned activists on Twitter. In particular, baseballcrank, and esotericcd, who are lawyers. I came to understand that their political messaging operations were a side gig, and always secondary to their ability to make a living from practice of the law. Which primarily depends on having judges willing to listen to you, which requires that you very carefully curate all of your statements. This is a problem when a major political question involves case law that is a result of a consent decree that restrained one point of view, and allowed the opposing point of view to operate through an officially sanctioned proxy. This consent decree was also improperly premised. (The parties switched places, my ass.) Additionally, covid lockdowns were effectively a criminal conspiracy. Additionally, the restraint on police force by Democrat Mayors, DAs, and Governors in relation to the violence by BLM and anti-fa seems to be effectively a criminal conspiracy. Many Republicans would prefer to accuse judges of criminal conspiracy, well in advance of being able to prove that conspiracy in criminal court. Especially in combination with an industry attempt to blacklist provision of services to these views, the attempt by lawyers to remain credible to judges can seem to Republican laymen like a willful and dishonest betrayal. This impeaches the credibility of the courts in being able to formally resolve these disputes. The courts will be properly looked upon with skepticism until the case law provides a clear and equally available ability to contest suspect elections.
- Nancy Pelosi was daughter of a mayor of Baltimore. The Democrats whose use of power she would have grown up admiring, most likely included Virginian Democrats and other Democrats who may have been approving of white supremacist terrorism. The ‘switched places’ narrative is not sufficient given her leadership of the Capital Police, that the Capital Police allowed the scaffolding to be readied outside Mitch McConnell’s office, and that 2020 was perhaps the most concentrated terror campaign in about forty years when it came to burning black neighborhoods. The MO of 2020’s riots seems to be extremely similar, and might have instead been carried out under Woodrow Wilson.
- The academic experts are wrong, and have been avoiding criticism by sticking to curated places of discussion. They may have made themselves extremely vulnerable to counterargument. It is early days yet, and too soon to call every roll of the dice.


























































