Take the 1st Amendment, please…
Written Feb 3, 2017, in response to the 1st wave of Leftist anti-Trump “Resistors” and “Indivisibles”, before they scuttled underground to metastasize into more violent BLM and Antifa manifestations.
Our beleaguered Constitution, if it could think, might conclude, “The rule of law ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.”
Take the 1st Amendment, please, before another group of masked idiots assemble and cite it while shouting obscenities as they hurl flaming projectiles and beat innocent bystanders while the police stand by watching, boxed out from law enforcement by a cohort of ACLU lawyers waiting in the wings for ripe circumstances to torture into a social justice legal crusade.
Take the 1st Amendment, please, before another third world religious zealot seeks to dismantle the entire Western legal system for a piece of cloth draped over her head and flowing robes that all symbolize a spiritual commitment so deep, that some righteously choose to destroy themselves and take as many innocent bystanders as they can down with them to satisfy their metaphysical requirements.
Take the 1st Amendment, please, before another elected official abandons all proportionality and connection to real causation, and misrepresents through innuendo and character assassination the persons with whom they disagree as they drip crocodile tears onto their prepared scripts.
Take the 1st Amendment, please, before another round of misinterpreted facts get shoe-horned by a televised media panel of experts, paid by the minute to deliver prejudgments in a telegenic manner according to program directions and their contractual requirements, who call themselves the free press.
On speech, the 1st Amendment codifies both a right and a remedy for the violation of that right. Except in a couple subjects, 1st Amendment rights and remedies compete equally with no legal advantage given to either side. The Founders, however, contemplated that the right to free speech needed constitutional protection primarily for political speech.
Enter militant mass demonstrations that threaten violence, political attacks on the Constitution hidden under religious veils, misrepresentations by elected officials, and media malfeasance.
Can any of these contemporary manifestations stretching the envelope of 1st Amendment protected speech be construed to somehow improve our political form?
Not in the least. They all dissolve the meaning of the Constitution like salt in water, where nothing grows thereafter.
Today’s national socialists and their Untermensch
Today’s young [and old] national socialist Democrat resisting indivisibles are quick to call people who disagree with them Nazis. Meanwhile, they’ve cut off reasonable feedback from family and friends through ridicule and scorn, and one doubts they’ll ever escape or grow out of the Leftist cult. The worldview inside their self-imposed cult blinders, riven by identity and class divisions, misery, envy, hate, and retribution, is immune from critical analysis. They don’t want to improve conditions for all mankind. They want to take what they think is coming to them.
The lynchpin for the whole syndrome seems to be killing babies – believing that it makes women’s lives better to exercise that sordid tenant of social justice. But abortion sets the bar high for abominations against fellow mankind. All manner of imposition, force, militancy, redistribution, regulation, and yes, retribution, fall well within that standard. On that scale, any force less than termination becomes a reasonable method for the achievement of utopian social justice.
And if human nature weren’t at the bottom of it all, motivating us to do what we do, to create what wealth we can create, to protect the fruits of our labors from theft by others as we must, the Left’s utopia could actually work.
But human nature is our nature, and no amount of Leftist redefinition of that nature can change it. The Left’s struggle to change human nature will always fail. Calling a baby a fetus won’t somehow undo the baby.
Anyone who doubts this can try the following: Rename your hand “anvilus.” Believe it! Now, smash your anvilus with a hammer.
Changing the label for something, or some beings, does not change their nature. It’s been tried before: See Untermensch
Vibrant young people, so intent on changing human nature to serve an unworkable utopian vision, spend gobs of good energy chasing after bad ideas. They deal out insults and rage like Halloween candy when challenged. They cut themselves off from reality feedback by friends and family outside of the cult from whom they might learn and recover sanity.
On the eve of this election, Trump and the Senate did what they could to set conditions to reasonably consider the mess of adjudicated social policies tearing the country apart.
Meanwhile, Obama and the Left aim to take back control to continue their wave of destruction because it makes them feel good about their good intentions. Haven’t we had enough of the Left’s good intentions?
From the perspective of today’s unborn untermensch, those intentions became genocide. Thankfully, the remainder of the Left’s policies, while disastrous, expensive and unworkable, are at least not so deadly.
Matheson, more windmills than people.
The uncivil strategy for offensive Leftism
The Left foreshadowed their ongoing street theatre of harassing leadership and throwing up phoney charges at the opening of the Kavanaugh hearings. Audience members jumped up shouting and wailing in a calculated and prolonged demonstration, made to appear like random testaments, to insert themselves into, and destroy the hearing process – egged on by phoney procedural delay attempts from their Leftist Senators.
It was all planned, and it raised a big middle finger to the American people who tuned in to learn something about their government.
The Left cannot permit reason to control. Under reason, they lose. But the rule of law is no match for the rule of the mob. Civility can’t compete with barbarity. Consent means nothing in the face of force.
The Left moved the bar to shouting, property destruction, procedural disruption, and all things uncivil. Without civility, what remains to check human impulses? How long until they start shooting?
That’s how previous Leftist movements all ended up. The fascists, communists, and socialists always end up imposing violent repression because citizens don’t usually voluntarily give up their freedom. Freedom gets taken surreptitiously. It’s stolen quietly, a bit at a time.
Like now. Our Supreme Court nomination process has been taken from the people and put under the force of Leftist dominion. Our Republican leadership seems oblivious to the theft.
Antifa, BLM, the Indivisibles, the Resist movement, the DSA, all the Soros-funded groups, etc., want their violent escalations to end up in revolution. No way are they moderating themselves.
Resist the resisters
Indivisibles, resisters, Democrats, Leftists, ANTIFA, BLM, whatever flag they wave on a given day, get the cart before the horse. Adversity is the game they play with any issue, any personality, and any physical or mental manifestation. Objects take many forms, and they can all be used in the struggle.
Present the object in a light most unfavorable to their opponents, and most favorable to themselves. Pound the issues, pound the law, pound the table! Take the adversarial theatrics from the courtroom and apply them in every other room in America under the innocuous labels of “dialog,” “demonstration,” and “protected speech.”
As employed by the Left, the accurate term is “dialectics,” right out of Marxism. It is process untempered by reason.
In the courtroom, a jury of reasonable people decide which adverse position is most reasonable and which is most unreasonable. The loser pays, goes to jail, or desists, and the process ends.
But the dialectics applied by the Left don’t respect the outcome of a vote, and don’t have an ending. A vote against the Left just signals it’s time to amp up the adversity. The beat always goes on. Look around. Non-stop opposition media propaganda makes it pretty hard to miss.
It’s easy to get caught up in the emotion of the Left. The tragic images they present scream injustice and cry out for resolution. But the images rarely withstand much scrutiny. Closer inspection always ends up debunking the image. And there’s always another image waiting in the wings.
It is unnatural to be changeless, to stay the same way, and have the same answer, all the time, for all situations – except when it comes to the Left. Perhaps this is the ultimate irony – the group that consider themselves progressive, never seem to progress.
the battle space
A local Indivisible, Elizabeth Haymond, wrote today, “It is not enough for us to simply win enough votes, we must use this as an opportunity to condemn bigotry and xenophobia across our state. This is our moment to control the narrative. . .”
The noble motives that Haymond wants to virtue-signal to the world through her political action get undermined in the very next sentence. She is good, and there will be no dissent about that.
Who are the bigots and the xenophobes? That’s easy. They self-identify by opposing Haymond or voting against the way Haymond wants.
Not only is a political disagreement with Haymond impermissible, it constitutes an offense personal to Haymond on spiritual and metaphysical levels.
What if the purported bigots and xenophobes have a good reason for voting against the act of government that Haymond supports? Doesn’t matter. The narrative is under Haymond’s control and she’s not interested in debate.
This is just one example of the Left’s paradigm. You could take all of the social pathologies the Left virtue-signal about and pair them up with policies and actions the Left have assigned to the domain of government. They reinforce each other in tautological circles of reason.
The election of Donald Trump catalyzed the Left on a metaphysical level. The Left didn’t just lose an election. They watched, and continue to endure, insults to all that is just and holy in their world. The string of hate-proxy social pathologies the Left obsess upon are all in a high state of excitement right now, and will apparently remain so for the foreseeable future.
The Left seek something big and invasive–they want your mind. An election for the Left is just a step in a direction, a weapon in the broader battle for your head space.
They won’t admit straight out that they want control over your thoughts because that would put people off. But look at Haymond’s political construct above and do a little deductive reasoning. See if you can find any space left over after she’s through.
And consider this is just one of a whole basket of the Left’s political vectors, all motivated by meta-level social pathologies that must be justly resolved, but in reality can never be finalized until utopia is achieved.
They leave no room for any individual thought in your brain after they get done with you.
To be fair, conservatives have meta constructs of a religious nature too. God-given rights described in the Declaration of Independence codified into legislative and constitutional enforcements may be considered as metaphysical in nature as the Left’s basket of social pathologies.
Both sides’ metaphysics can be distinguished by; those that support the collective and those that support the individual, those that expand the domain of government and those that empower the individual against the usurpations of government, those that control your mind and those that set your mind free to create, those that are tautological and those that are unconstrained.
Free cultures award virtue on the basis of what one creates. Collective cultures award virtue to people who talk about it. Obviously, one of these paradigms leads to more tangible progress, and it isn’t the one that calls itself progressive.
Consider the educational malpractice of legions of young people taught in public school each day the language of the Left’s social pathologies. Will they grow up to be Haymonds?
Boldfaced American propaganda
Speech and ideation control targeting young Americans
Reported by: Discoverthenetworks.org
“Indivisible is an organization that seeks to persuade Americans – particularly young people – to believe that big, centralized government can benefit society in a multitude of ways that the private sector cannot. In short, Indivisible’s objective is to “energiz[e] and infor[m] Americans about government’s potential” to ensure “a safe, healthy, just and prosperous future” for all. Asserting that “too much time is taken up debating big government versus small government,” Indivisible contends that “what we need to be discussing is how our government works well,” and why it is indispensable for “accomplishing big things.”
In an effort to “inspire a cultural shift in how Americans think about the role of government in America,” Indivisible is committed to “disrupting and reframing negative media discourse about government,” “creating a network of champions to change the conversation about government in their communities,” and “training the next generation of civic-minded leaders.” Toward these ends, the organization has created an Indivisible Institute that administers a leadership-development program for young people “who share a passion for reclaiming government as our unique tool for addressing tomorrow’s challenges and opportunities.” These “emerging leaders” are taught how “to help … build a new American culture” wherein “the potential and promise of government” is axiomatic.
One of Indivisible’s major projects is its “Pave the Way” video contest, whose name derives from the notion that government is “literally paving our way with road construction and interstates.” This contest offers cash prizes to young people who produce quality videos of interviews wherein small-business owners tell “how government paved the way for their business’ success” by means of things like the GI Bill, the Affordable Care Act, Small Business Administration loan programs, and infrastructure spending.
Another key initiative of Indivisible is its “I Love My” program, which offers information and talking points designed to highlight the many benefits of government. On the premise that “it’s amazing how much government is doing behind the scenes to make our lives better every day,” Indivisible argues that the media should make a special effort to “show [that] our public systems and structures [are] usually so well run that we don’t notice them at all.” One such structure, says Indivisible, is the U.S. Postal Service, which “makes our businesses better,” “helps our communities function,” “makes our democracy work,” and “is the reason our country works at all.”
Similarly, another section of the “I Love My” program teaches people to how to speak about taxes in a way that emphasizes their usefulness in helping government to serve “the common good,” rather than in a way that casts them in a negative light. “Don’t talk about taxes as a ‘burden‘ or something from which we need ‘relief,’” Indivisible advises. “These [terms] are inherently negative and they cue up the dominant thinking that taxes are bad. Instead, talk about taxes as ‘loads’ to be carried or shared.” Moreover, says Indivisible: “Don’t call people ‘taxpayers‘ – it limits the conversation to only one side of the ledger (costs, not benefits). Instead, talk about people as ‘residents’ or ‘citizens’ or ‘member[s] of our community’ – it highlights that we are all people who both contribute to and benefit from public systems and structures.”
Indivisible’s “My Take” program features interviews where “real people” are asked to articulate “their feelings [about] government” and their various interactions with it. For example, the interviewees are asked: (a) “What is your favorite thing that government does?” (b) “Who is your government hero who is not an elected official?” (c) “What thing that government does do you think would surprise most Americans?”
Indivisible’s “Reality Check” program seeks to “expos[e] the reality behind myths and misunderstandings about government,” which ultimately serves as “our tool to help us solve big problems together.”
Reclaiming Government for America’s Future is an Indivisible research project consisting of reports, videos, and webinars that aim to counter the popular notion that government “is too big, intrusive, untrustworthy, and controlled by powerful elites” who have little interest in using it as “a tool for the common good.” Topos Partnership conducted this research on behalf of Indivisible, Public Works, and a number of partner organizations in Oregon, North Carolina, Nebraska, Michigan, Arkansas, and Colorado. The overarching objective of the project is to spell out ways in which progressives can effectively “shift conversations and begin to change the cultural common sense about government.”
Politics of the Swarm
“Indivisible” groups across the U.S. take inspirations from the success of the previously-reviled “astroturf” Tea Party, from the militant ANTIFA Left wing who practice violence to preclude counter revolutionary messages from being heard, from the Occupy campers, and all of it underpinned by a love of Marxism, sympathy for communism, hatred of capitalism, and revulsion over the evil counter-revolutionary Republicans.
But that’s not the message they present to the rest of the world—the Dar al-Harb [House of War]—the U.S. became for them after the recent election.
In the new battle space, forget philosophy, argument, cases, constructs, reasoning, laws, precedent, decorum, and civil behavior. Enter the swarm—used to be called the mob. But where the mob was random and uncontrolled, the swarm is targeted and strategic.
The swarm intends to overwhelm, not through a Cloward-Piven system-saturation strategy, but through crowding out the head space, the message space of the public domain, from the opposition—the illegitimate non-communist counter revolutionaries currently holding public office.
With what content, one might ask, and here’s the new twist. It’s nothing. Or something. It does not matter! The message is irrelevant except as a temporary placeholder to crowd out the opposition message. Counter revolutionaries are so far beneath the Left’s contempt, they’re not even worth an argument.
Instead, they get short, shouted, repetitive, symbolic phrases, fitted to sound bites. No conversation, no debate, because no one wants to be seen talking to a counter revolutionary dhimmi.
The swarm intends to foreclose discussion and provoke suppression. If they get lucky, maybe create a few martyrs for the movement. They intend to exacerbate normal human relations by politicizing everything to foreclose peaceful constructive communications. Peace does not serve their interest in revolution.
Any form of engagement aggravates the swarm. Proximity or adjacency feeds it with targets to focus outrage upon.
So how should civil society, the descendants of our Western intellectual heritage, live alongside these extremely unpleasant, and sometimes outright destructive, swarming communist agents?
It seems prudent to keep a safe distance from them when they’re in outrage mode. Perhaps if enough people stop enabling them and leave them alone to burn through their tantrums among themselves, they’ll eventually burn themselves out and settle down.
There’s plenty of advice on the internet for dealing with tantrums in children, advice that might inform a rational approach to political tantrums by Leftist adults.
Meanwhile, the political adults in the room should carry on with the constructive chores that come with adulthood. To this end they should continue to publish their constructive ideas, present their solutions using reasonable persuasion, and most importantly, stop taking the Left’s tantrums as serious political statements.
To elevate the swarm’s messaging to the level of our core constitutional structures, besides being an absurd equivocation, seriously undervalues the work product from the Founders who built our republic, and we should never forget that hindsight.