ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, August 19, 2013

Mailvox: the futility of cancer

Nate explains both why left-wing parasites are driven to take over organizations and why their takeovers always end in the eventual demise of the organization:
They never learn. They don't understand civilization, and they don't understand power. That's why they are never able to successfully build organizations in the first place. So they have to take over the organizations others have already built and try to use them for their own goals. They think that the organization itself... the name... is what makes it relevant. So they imagine if they can just get control of it... all that power will be theirs.

So they break the very tools they are planning to use to fix the world.

Then they stand there with a dumb look on their face... trying to drive a nail with a broken hammer... and cannot understand why it isn't working.
This process is as true of the Episcopalian Church and the Boy Scouts of America as it is of the SFWA.  Some believe that destruction was always the aim, but I don't think that is true of the average parasite who joins an organization. I think in most cases they genuinely wish to "improve" the organization and do not understand that their desired improvements will kill it.

I'll write more on this in the next day or two, in my response to NK Jemisin's call for further "reconciliation". What is interesting is the way in which Nate's description here perfectly describes her approach to "improving" SF/F.

Their analytical abilities don't appear to exceed that of the average cancer cell. The current SFWA is rather like a collection of cancer cells congratulating themselves on how much they have improved the body they are inhabiting and celebrating the way in which they have driven most of those disgusting, unprofessional white blood cells out.  And it is not hard to imagine their alarm when suddenly the body that sustains them begins to cease functioning, for no particular reason at all.

This is something that the Society for the Advancement of Speculative Storytelling may wish to keep in mind, lest it one day find itself going the same route as SFWA.  And speaking of SASS, the organization released a statement entitled: "Statement on the expulsion of a member by another writers' organization"

In response to requests for comments regarding the decision of another writers' group to formally expel a lifetime member, SASS Secretary and spokesman Lou Antonelli makes the following statement:

"Although the subject in question was exercising his free speech rights under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, that has nothing to do with the standards of conduct and behavior within a private organization

"Like any private club, the organization in question is allowed to police its membership according to its regulations and bylaws. This is an internal discipline issue and not a matter of concern to the Society for the Advancement of Speculative Storytelling.

"The by-laws of the Society for the Advancement of Speculative Storytelling clearly state that members should not discuss religion or politics within its auspices, and its members are expected to treat each other with respect. Those are our bylaws, and each group operates according to its own bylaws and policies.


I note that not only does SFWA have no standard of conduct and behavior, but it previously had one that was, if I recall correctly, junked during the Russell Davis administration.  As the SFWA's statement demonstrated, the current Board believes it can throw anyone out of the organization at any time for no particular reason at all.  If I hadn't made it clear to everyone that I was the member to whom the statement referred, no one would outside the SFWA Board and its confidants would even know with certainty who the expelled member was.

Of course, it would certainly be amusing if the Board's assumptions turned out to be incorrect, would it not?  Because in that case, I would not even be expelled at all. And it occurs to me that someone inclined towards conspiracy theory might even conjecture that the reason the SFWA Board refused to publicly identify the expelled member is because they know very well that the expulsion was not legitimate, that it was a sham expulsion, and they are attempting to avoid being sued for damages once the illegitimacy of their action is established.

Labels: , ,

196 Comments:

Blogger Lawrence August 19, 2013 9:30 AM  

Lucifer could not create his own version of mankind -- he could only re-purpose God's existing creations. It is that way with most forms of evil. It is inherently impossible for evil to build, but it is certainly capable of destroying.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 9:33 AM  

" What is interesting is the way in which Nate's description here perfectly describes her approach to "improving" SF/F."

I tries.

Blogger nuckinfutz August 19, 2013 9:37 AM  

"I'll write more on this in the next day or two, in my response to NK Jemisin's call for further "reconciliation".

Oh Great and Powerful Oz, does your arrogance have no limits? Can you not even simply consider that wrecking havoc has never been the intentional goal on Jemisin's part? When in the process of proving your own theories, you manage to disprove your own theories. Male solipsism at it's finest.

The first rule, the golden rule, is first do no harm. Jeimsin inadvertently did harm yesterday, not deliberately, but because she was unknowingly being pursued by menindresses with better hacking skillz and a fondness for children. Jemisin has had it right all along, but damage was done by some unknown mcrapeys. Jemisin cannot even prove her own theory without disproving her own theory, but she refuses to apologize for it this time, because there are so many mcrapeys playing another kind of sick game. jemisin is also annoyed about having now lost everything, email,FB, financial records, blogs...and a delicate thread of trust that was just about to blossom.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 9:45 AM  

"Can you not even simply consider that wrecking havoc has never been the intentional goal on Jemisin's part?"

So you really can't read can you?

That was actually the main point of what Vox said. He outright says, she is not trying to destroy anything. She is trying to improve it.

Moron.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 19, 2013 9:45 AM  

Your cancer point actually stretches way beyond parasitism. It's one of the ways to tell if an entire philosophy is inherently illegitimate. Does it depend for its continued existence on its antithesis, as in pacificism being dependent on the protections of a society willing to wage war? Or as in secular humanism cum social democracy needing a religiously inspired birthrate to keep going.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 9:46 AM  

" I think in most cases they genuinely wish to "improve" the organization and do not understand that their desired improvements will kill it."

See that? Read it. Now read it again.

freaking mongoloid.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 9:55 AM  

jemisin is also annoyed about having now lost everything, email,FB, financial records, blogs...and a delicate thread of trust that was just about to blossom.

Is this even English?

You clearly can typing.

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 19, 2013 9:55 AM  

Over at "jim's blog" he calls this phenomenon "entryism" and he has a lot of interesting material discussing it and analyzing it. It's worth a look. Don't know the extent to which I believe he's right, but it's an informed and valuable perspective. The author, "Jim", is a bit of a crackpot, but he's extremely erudite and thoughtful, and he has a lot of strange, interesting, unusual things to say. Not unlike our host here.

I don't agree with everything that gets said in the alt-rightosphere, but for my money it's pretty much the only sector of the internets where genuinely interesting and original conversation occurs, without all the drag nets of crimestop and counterthink and lefty institutional fake rebellion (people in total authority still wearing buttons that say "Question Authority" to challenge an imaginary authority which has no actual power, whilst refusing to question their own, very real, authority) and political correctness. I don't come here to be educated, nor to get my personal impressions affirmed, and the truth is I often exaggerate my own positions with a great deal of theatrical fuming, simply to see what sort of response that will get. I come here, and to other places like this, for the pleasures of conversation: to hear smart interesting people speak their minds and say things it wouldn't have occurred to me to say.

Which is a long way of saying, if you're interested in this topic and want to pursue the analysis from multiple perspectives, go over to jim's blog and click on the subheading "entryism".



Anonymous Salt August 19, 2013 9:56 AM  

the illegitimacy of their action is established.

Hammers work great when the target is a nail.

Anonymous Nah August 19, 2013 9:59 AM  

Bruce Charlton frequently notes, I think correctly, that we should NOT give Leftists credit for "good intentions".

Know them by their fruits.

Monday, 9 April 2012
Do Leftists really intend evil, or it is just an accident?
*

The bad news is that Leftists really do evil on purpose and it is not a matter of good intentions accidentally gone astray.

How do I know this?

Because they do not correct their errors.

*

E.g. Leftist policies destroy marriage, and when this destruction is obvious they do not repent and undo the policies but continue to add new policies which continue to destroy marriage. Therefore, the policies are intended to destroy marriage.

*

Any policy which leads to harm and yet not repented and reversed was, we must infer, done deliberately - with intent to harm.

When Leftism leads to communist totalitarian evil, and the result appears again and again, then we must conclude that this is deliberate.

We must first learn to recognise evil - and this means we must acknowledge the reality and commonness of evil intent - of planned, unrepentant, recidivist evil.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother August 19, 2013 10:00 AM  

Amish are parasites in this way, Kratman. I thought of them when you mentioned pacifists relying on the protection of a society willing to wage war in their place. They don't impress me too much. Would they even defend themselves against criminals?

Anonymous Matthew August 19, 2013 10:02 AM  

Scoobius, you can also find Jim commenting at Eric Raymond's blog under the name James A. Donald. He's as aggressive there as you are here and more prolific. Pick any post there with a political sounding title, and Jim has likely frightened the rabbits within.

OpenID artisanaltoadshall August 19, 2013 10:02 AM  

There's a life-cycle to organizations: birth, adolescence, maturity, decline and death. While it takes an entrepreneur with vision to start a business, the skillset required to start a successful business isn't often the skillset required to run the business successfully once it reaches a certain level of complexity and maturity.

Looking at the difference between privately held companies that hire professional managers and demand performance; as opposed to public companies in which 15% of the shares is often all that's necessary to control decisions, one sees a critical difference. In public companies the management tends to view the company as a means to an end, which is lining their own pockets and to hell with the shareholders. They are not subject to the accountability that the management of a privately held company is held to.

It's the same with organizations. At some point the goals of the organization are hijacked and replaced with the agenda and goals of the people running the organization. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but as the adventures of the SWPA prove, democracy isn't a useful tool to steer the ship in an environment in which one group gets to control the dialogue.

In the case of the SFWA, I think it should be as simple as recognizing the organization is past the point of maturity and in decline. The cancer you allude to is obviously killing the patient. Will the patient receive lots of morphine and ease gently into the night, or die violently in a screaming spasm of pain? The real question is whether you want to be there for either event, and why. You proposed a radical treatment for the disease, but were shouted (and voted) down... then ejected.

Given that the publishing landscape has changed dramatically in the last decade, the needs of authors (especially new authors) has changed as well. Looking at the SFWA's criteria for becoming a member, it's a ridiculous organization that obviously doesn't exist for 21st Century authors. Vox, are you still trying to treat this terminal case, or trying to hasten the patient's demise?

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 10:03 AM  

This pattern of behavior starts when the neighborhood boys build a tree fort and start hanging out there, and then some girl gets mad that she can't play in the tree fort, so her mom calls the other moms and they all decide that it's only fair for the boys to let the girls play in the tree fort. And then things like curtains and pink and dolls start appearing in the tree fort and all the boys leave to go do something else.

Anonymous Nah August 19, 2013 10:04 AM  

lefty institutional fake rebellion -- people in total authority still wearing buttons that say "Question Authority" to challenge an imaginary authority which has no actual power, whilst refusing to question their own, very real, authority

The same people claim that there is no such thing as truth or virtue... while at the same time claiming the moral, rational, and scientific high ground for themselves.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 10:05 AM  

"The bad news is that Leftists really do evil on purpose and it is not a matter of good intentions accidentally gone astray.

How do I know this?

Because they do not correct their errors. "

This is incorrect.

Failure to learn from one's mistakes is not a sign of evil. It is a sign of stupidity.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 10:05 AM  

Is nuckinfutz the even more retarded cousin of yttik?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 19, 2013 10:06 AM  

The Episcopal Church stands as a great example of an institution that fails to properly discipline people who hold anti-Christian worldviews. It didn't start with the consecration of a gay bishop, it started much earlier than that.

Let this be a lesson to anyone who establishes or manages any institution: Left-wing people are naturally cowards when confronted and they should be confronted early on and thrown out immediately and with prejudice. Otherwise, they will eventually obtain the power they crave and then you're left with a huge mess that can't be cleaned up without destroying the organization they control.

Anonymous Nah August 19, 2013 10:07 AM  

Failure to learn from one's mistakes is not a sign of evil. It is a sign of stupidity.

Too bad Leftists are not stupid.

Try again.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 10:11 AM  

Too bad Leftists are not stupid.

Try again.


They're not? No kidding.

Seriously, pointing at leftists and screaming "evil" is leftist behavior.

Try again.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 19, 2013 10:13 AM  

Failure to learn from one's mistakes is not a sign of evil. It is a sign of stupidity.

I don't think it's stupidity so much as it is arrogance. Recall that when Milton Friedman confronted Senator Ted Kennedy about how Socialism has never worked in all its history, Kennedy bellowed back, "Socialism hasn't worked because it hasn't had me running it!!"

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 10:13 AM  

"Too bad Leftists are not stupid.

Try again."


yes yes.. your tautology is truly a devastating weapon in debate.

Blogger Tom Kratman August 19, 2013 10:15 AM  

Amish are indeed parasites, Stg58, and I feel no social compact with them whatsoever. Horde of barbarians wants to kill them and cart off their females as slaves? Be my guests; I owe them nothing.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother August 19, 2013 10:16 AM  

Josh,

If nuckin' were Yttik's cousin, that would be ztufgnikcun. That makes even less sense than...ah, I see what you did there.

Anonymous Nah August 19, 2013 10:17 AM  

Seriously, pointing at leftists and screaming "evil" is leftist behavior.

The fact that Leftists lie about good and evil - inverting it so that they are good and their enemies are evil - does not mean that there is actually no such thing as evil or that Leftists should not be labelled as such. Indeed, part of the reason for the Left's success is they have intimidated their enemies into giving them credit for "good intentions" instead of correctly calling them evil.

Try again.

Anonymous Nah August 19, 2013 10:18 AM  

your tautology is truly a devastating weapon in debate.

Well, if Leftists are stupid, and they have consistently outwitted you for centuries, what does that say about you?

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 August 19, 2013 10:19 AM  

The bad news is that Leftists really do evil on purpose and it is not a matter of good intentions accidentally gone astray.

How do I know this?

Because they do not correct their errors


They know their ideas didn't work last time, but it can't be the fault of the ideas.
It's the same reason why losing blackjack players double down instead of walk away when the table goes cold.
All it takes is one winning hand to make it all right.

Anonymous Alexander August 19, 2013 10:21 AM  

Old El Paso Girl says, "Why not both?"

I have no doubt that the vast majority of people who consider themselves liberals are not actively seeking to do evil. At worst, they are useful idiots.

But the elite who are actually making the policies and forcing them on others while taking great pains to ensure that they and theirs aren't caught in it? That tier is very clever and very evil.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 10:21 AM  

Leftism is taking solipsism to it's logical conclusion. The leftist is generally the sort of person who projects themselves onto everyone else.

This is why leftists support a planned economy. After all, they plan their day, they plan their budgets, why can't that work for the entire economy?

This is also why leftists support gun bans. After all, they would never buy a gun illegally, and they assume no one else would. Because everyone else is just like them.

They are also utterly incapable of understanding our failed education system, because they were good little students and can't imagine anyone ever not wanting to do what teacher says.

The leftist world might work if everyone was just like them. That's why Sweden worked for so long. Their massive blind spot is that not everyone is like them.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 10:25 AM  

Indeed, part of the reason for the Left's success is they have intimidated their enemies into giving them credit for "good intentions" instead of correctly calling them evil.

Look dude, screaming "evil" at someone is not an effective argument. It only succeeds in getting your side worked up, it doesn't actually convince anyone.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 10:28 AM  

But the elite who are actually making the policies and forcing them on others while taking great pains to ensure that they and theirs aren't caught in it? That tier is very clever and very evil.

There are three tiers of leftist, and only the middle tier are true believers. The bottom and top tiers are only in it because they benefit materially.

Anonymous Daniel August 19, 2013 10:31 AM  

"Like any private club, the organization in question is allowed to police its membership according to its regulations and bylaws. This is an internal discipline issue and not a matter of concern to the Society for the Advancement of Speculative Storytelling."

This is well-put by Lou. (emphasis mine). The fact that the SFWA not only openly fails to operate according to its own by-laws is one thing. The fact that they clearly don't even comprehend those by-laws is what is the real sign that the problem is terminal. When your ideology requires that you ignore the initial phase of the cobra effect (violating by-laws in order to preserve the object of the by-laws), you are using your last red flags as kindling, and there's a snow-filled branch overhead...

They think they rid themselves of a snake, when what they did was turn every last member they have into a snake.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 10:32 AM  

"Well, if Leftists are stupid, and they have consistently outwitted you for centuries, what does that say about you?"

they haven't out-witted anyone. The left wins because the left is not constrained by the rules of civilization. The Right loses because the Right cannot sacrifice the rules of the civilization it is trying to protect.

Plus... the left has time and human nature on its side. It doesn't need to be clever.

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 19, 2013 10:32 AM  

"Indeed, part of the reason for the Left's success is they have intimidated their enemies into giving them credit for "good intentions" instead of correctly calling them evil."

I've often thought that the best refutation of leftism would be this: somebody ought to buy a farm and then run the farm on pure leftist principles, and document on video, day by day, the excruciating process of how everything died.

Once again: read Wendell Berry. Berry is so smart that not even he knows how right he is.




Anonymous DonReyolds August 19, 2013 10:32 AM  

Good comment, Vox. Probably one of your best.

In Saxon England there was one King Alfred, who is still called "the Great". One of the more important things that made him a great king was that he wrote down the laws in the language common at the time, not in Latin. He put an end to capricious and arbitrary royal rule, giving all his subjects an opportunity to know the laws of the realm before they were broken. What made Alfred truely great was the idea of written law, written in the language of the ordinary person. This became a guarantee between monarch and subject, that the king will also obey his own laws, just as he expects his subjects to do.

Without the rule of written law, what we are left with is naked authority......capricious and arbitrary. No one subject to their authority knows what to expect and any one of them can be exiled or dropped from the body for violating unwritten rules, bruising new sensibilities, or falling on old grudges. Pirates were much better organized actually and more tolerant of their members than SFWA. When an organization expells a candidate after a presidential election, I think most people can smell what is happening.

Anonymous Alexander August 19, 2013 10:33 AM  

Josh,

Fair enough. But there's still a difference between tiers 1 and 3. Tier 3 is just in it for the immediate gratification of the government funded bread and circuses. Stupid and short-sighted, but definitely not evil unless we stretch evil to include 'selfish' - not something I'm inclined to do.

But Tier 1 includes the O'Brien's of the world. Evil is alive and well in that part of the population.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 10:38 AM  

But Tier 1 includes the O'Brien's of the world. Evil is alive and well in that part of the population.

Obviously. But they don't really care about leftist. They just know it's a tool they can USSR to acquire vast amounts of wealth and power.

The problem with the right is that they think every leftist is of the top tier, when most are actually the middle tier.

OpenID thetroll August 19, 2013 10:43 AM  

> Failure to learn from one's mistakes is not a sign of evil. It is a sign of stupidity.

+1.

It is natural for those of us who can work out consequences to start suspecting after a while that when the universal leftie response to failure is to double down on the causes of that failure that they must be comprehending what they're doing, yes.

But that is incorrect. The real problem is that they cannot accept that their feeling-based presumptions and consequent "reasoning" could be wrong because that would bring their self-identification as a Good Person into question. Therefore they are rendered incapable of actually comprehending cause and effect, and furthermore have no other alternative than to label as evil those who will actually acknowledge hatefacts in the attempt to accomplish something productive.

I have no idea how you convince someone that reality should trump their feelings, but that's what you need to do, not just label those that don't as 'evil'. That's the mirror image of them labelling those of us who acknowledge hatefacts evil for doing so, and it's just as unproductive.

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 19, 2013 10:45 AM  

"There are three tiers of leftist, and only the middle tier are true believers."

Let's say for a moment that you and I took a slow five-day journey on horseback through the Sonora desert. If, in the course of those five days, you somehow failed to notice that everywhere you looked, there was this ubiquitous plant called a "cactus", I would sort of take you for an idiot. What is this "cactus" thing, what role does it play in the environment, why do I see it in the desert everywhere I look? Right?

Now I'm going to take you on a five-day tour through the corridors of American power: political, financial, legal, academic. Everywhere you look, without fail, you're going to see this creature called a "Jew". Again, if you fail to notice this perfectly natural phenomenon in its natural habitat, I'm going to think you are an idiot. Think for a moment: What role does this "Jew" play in its environment?

Back to your original statement:
"There are three tiers of leftist, and only the middle tier are true believers."

Discuss.



Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 19, 2013 10:46 AM  

Without the rule of written law, what we are left with is naked authority......capricious and arbitrary. No one subject to their authority knows what to expect and any one of them can be exiled or dropped from the body for violating unwritten rules, bruising new sensibilities, or falling on old grudges.

There is also the other end of this: with too many written laws, then there is naked authority. If everyone is a criminal (which we all are in this post-post-modern Utopia in the making), then the powers that be need only accuse us of something and imprison us at their whim.

When God passed on the 613 laws to the Israelites, he didn't come back the following year and said, "and here's 1023 more". Unlike our permanent legislative bodies which are largely unnecessary save for writing up a budget. And they can't even get that right these days.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 10:46 AM  

Thank you Josh, that comment was a bit scary. Please don't trigger more hysteria and panic. However, I'll try to breath and pray.

Lawsy, I be making dem ladies have a case of the vapors! Somebody grab the fainting couch for this delicate flower!

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 10:47 AM  

For examples of why the left wins... look at the War for Southern Independence.

The conservative side... the South... would not do the necessary things to win the war, because it had preconceived ideals that it had to live up to. For example it believed it had to be perceived as fighting a defensive war.

The north was the left... and the north was fighting the "win at all cost" war.

Generally the side unconstrained by rules is the side that wins when it comes to war.

This same process is seen in today's politics... large and small. The ends always justify the means to the left.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 10:50 AM  

"I've often thought that the best refutation of leftism would be this: somebody ought to buy a farm and then run the farm on pure leftist principles, and document on video, day by day, the excruciating process of how everything died."

Didn't zimbabwe already do that?

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 10:50 AM  

Now I'm going to take you on a five-day tour through the corridors of American power: political, financial, legal, academic. Everywhere you look, without fail, you're going to see this creature called a "Jew". Again, if you fail to notice this perfectly natural phenomenon in its natural habitat, I'm going to think you are an idiot. Think for a moment: What role does this "Jew" play in its environment?

Actually, most of those Jews are going to be in the middle tier of true believers in leftism and the magical powers of socialism.

Anonymous Stilicho August 19, 2013 10:51 AM  

Is nuckinfutz the even more retarded cousin of yttik?

yttik has some fun new meds today

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 10:52 AM  

Didn't zimbabwe already do that?

I thought the holodomor did.

Anonymous Rex Little August 19, 2013 10:53 AM  

they are never able to successfully build organizations in the first place

Never? Just to name one example, it wasn't leftists who successfully built the Communist Party?

Anonymous Uncle Joe Stilicho August 19, 2013 10:54 AM  

Quantity of stupidity has an evil quality of its own

Anonymous DonReynolds August 19, 2013 10:57 AM  

swiftfoxmark2..."The Episcopal Church stands as a great example of an institution that fails to properly discipline people who hold anti-Christian worldviews. It didn't start with the consecration of a gay bishop, it started much earlier than that."

I think you have singled out the episcopalians for some reason. Nearly ALL of the big mainline protestant churches have been taken over by Liberals....Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, and their membership has dropped quite a bit over the years.

During the Vietnam Conflict, one sure way to avoiding being drafted into the military was to go to divinity school (for years). Such persons were either deferred indefinitely or exempted from the draft altogether. A consequence (not the only one) of this is the flood of Leftist and Liberal (anti-Vietnam war protesters) clergy, who have long since rose to positions of responsibility and leadership in their respective churches. Just to be fair, the Roman Catholic church was by no means spared this consequence. They also got a boatload of Che Guevaras for priests (and later bishops/cardinals).

I have said it many times in my life....that war will never be over. I guess you could see some interesting parallels, how the Mexican War led to the Civil War. It may well be, that the Vietnam Conflict will finally lead to Civil War (2) in this country...the battle lines being almost unchanged in the past 40 years.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 10:58 AM  

"Never? Just to name one example, it wasn't leftists who successfully built the Communist Party?"

We're talking about the pink shirts son. The proverbial Useful Idiots of the Left. We're not talking about the few that employ them to consolidate power.

Blogger James Dixon August 19, 2013 11:02 AM  

> I've often thought that the best refutation of leftism would be this: somebody ought to buy a farm and then run the farm on pure leftist principles, and document on video, day by day, the excruciating process of how everything died.

Now Scoobious, I'm pretty sure you've read "Animal Farm".

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 11:08 AM  

Probably not, but after the damage you have all caused, it is only fair that you are forced to to put up with me for a while. Karma loop.

What damage are you talking about and whom are you accusing of causing it?

Anonymous Krul August 19, 2013 11:08 AM  

scoobius dubious - I've often thought that the best refutation of leftism would be this: somebody ought to buy a farm and then run the farm on pure leftist principles, and document on video, day by day, the excruciating process of how everything died.

It's a shame the Owenites of New Harmony didn't have a YouTube account.

Huckleberry - They know their ideas didn't work last time, but it can't be the fault of the ideas.
It's the same reason why losing blackjack players double down instead of walk away when the table goes cold.
All it takes is one winning hand to make it all right.


True. This is similar to the empiricist/Keynesian excuse in economics: "We just didn't spend enough; a little more and we would have been successful."

It's the same attitude as one I saw on the Piers Morgan show in the wake of Sandy Hook. Morgan's guest informed him that Detroit (IIRC) has both the most gun restriction and the most gun violence in the US. Morgan replied that there is little gun restriction in neighboring states, so criminals must be buying guns there and bringing them back to the city.

The foregone conclusion: "We just don't have enough control. A little more and we'll be successful" - and it's never enough.

Anonymous Alexander August 19, 2013 11:08 AM  

That of course wouldn't happen, because the pure leftist principal is that the farm will function perfectly and everyone will get everything. Therefore, if the farm does NOT produce a vast bounty that's shared equally, the obvious conclusion is some right wingers infiltrated and destroyed the farm.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni August 19, 2013 11:11 AM  

I think this 'cancer' problem is what bothered me about the new Pope's statement on sodomites: "Who am I to judge?" Now, I have heard later that he has explained that and does still maintain that the Scriptures that recorded the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are "operative". But I fear I smell the advancing disease within his first words. If the Pope doesn't have the confidence to judge and to be judged (to quote Ayn Rand) who does? At least Objectivism has successfully fought off the cancer. So far. Ayn Rand for Pope!

Anonymous Krul August 19, 2013 11:14 AM  

Let's say for a moment that you and I took a slow five-day journey on horseback through the Sonora desert. If, in the course of those five days, you somehow failed to notice that everywhere you looked, there was this ubiquitous plant called a "cactus", I would sort of take you for an idiot. What is this "cactus" thing, what role does it play in the environment, why do I see it in the desert everywhere I look? Right?

I for one blame the existence of the desert on the damn, greedy Kiketus, hogging all the water like that.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 19, 2013 11:15 AM  

I've often thought that the best refutation of leftism would be this: somebody ought to buy a farm and then run the farm on pure leftist principles, and document on video, day by day, the excruciating process of how everything died.

Pretty much all American Socialists in the 1800s did this. We see this with the Shakers and then with Robert Owen. They just didn't have video technology to document it.

But the outcome was the same. A failed farming collective run on principles that go against human nature itself.

Anonymous DonReynolds August 19, 2013 11:16 AM  

Alexander...."That of course wouldn't happen, because the pure leftist principal is that the farm will function perfectly and everyone will get everything. Therefore, if the farm does NOT produce a vast bounty that's shared equally, the obvious conclusion is some right wingers infiltrated and destroyed the farm."

Yes, every policy failure of Liberals and Leftists is because of deliberate obstruction and sabotage by conservatives (in power), reactionaries, and counter-revolutionaries. These have to be liquidated (or exiled) in order the HAVE our worker's paradise. Heck, the conservatives even pollute people's minds with their propaganda and lies.....with the obvious and deliberate goal of racial conflict and division. (Stop staring at my Che Guevara t-shirt, I got it at the Democrat Party HQ. Cost me ten bucks.)

Anonymous J August 19, 2013 11:17 AM  

I've often thought that the best refutation of leftism would be this: somebody ought to buy a farm and then run the farm on pure leftist principles, and document on video, day by day, the excruciating process of how everything died.

Ukraine 1930, China 1960. Been there done that. The only people who don't know about it, don't want to know about it.

Anonymous Krul August 19, 2013 11:20 AM  

Alexander - But the elite who are actually making the policies and forcing them on others while taking great pains to ensure that they and theirs aren't caught in it? That tier is very clever and very evil.

I'm not so sure.

We on the right are always looking for a big, bad enemy to fight because how could the weak little rabbits that confront us possibly have been so successful? There must be lion somewhere pulling the strings.

But I suspect that they are rabbits from top to bottom.

Blogger The Deuce August 19, 2013 11:21 AM  

Regarding the stupid/evil debate between Nah and Nate, my answer is that Leftists are both. Consciously they don't expect their actions to destroy their own power base and wreck the lives of the people they claim to want to help, but just beneath their consciousness they know they are lying to themselves. They are engaged in perpetual doublethink.

What you guys are forgetting is that Leftist ideology denies the reality of objective truth, and of cause and effect. According to Leftist ideology, "truth" is established by creating consensus around the Left's ever-shifting "narrative."

Hence, when leftist plans fall to pot, and end up destroying the latest organization/city/state/society they took over, they are unable to adjust their policies. Their ideology requires them to close their eyes to the manifest, predictable cause-and-effect relationships that destroyed the host. Instead, they must blame it on an insufficiently strong consensus around their narrative, and redouble their efforts to establish consensus by cracking down even further on dissenters and identifying scapegoats to punish for "sabotaging" their efforts.

So, in one sense they really are too stupid to learn from their failures, but it's a deliberate, ideologically-driven stupidity, not an innate inability to learn. In fact, it would probably be more accurate to say that they do learn from their failures and are probably aware of them on some level, but they deliberately lie to themselves and others about what they know deep in their heart of hearts.

And that decision to lie and shut their eyes, even after their policies have caused great harm and suffering to millions of people, is evil, as is their decision to persecute innocent people simply for expressing a contrary opinion or failing to be completely up to speed with the latest arbitrary modification of the "narrative." And that self-enforced stupidity and ignorance, in turn, allows them to continue to justify their policies to themselves regardless of the results, and thus to continue doing more and more evil.

So, to sum up, Leftists are stupid because they are evil, and evil because they are stupid. But ultimately, evil lies at the root of it, and they are morally culpable for all of it.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 11:22 AM  

" Therefore, if the farm does NOT produce a vast bounty that's shared equally, the obvious conclusion is some right wingers infiltrated and destroyed the farm."

no no no... those were old leftists who didn't do it right. The new leftists are much smarter than the old leftists and will do it right. So THIS TIME... it will work.

Blogger Booch Paradise August 19, 2013 11:22 AM  

"Failure to learn from one's mistakes is not a sign of evil. It is a sign of stupidity."

I would call it more a sign of foolishness. And foolishness is evil as it's always rooted in a willful rejection of God.

Out in the open wisdom calls aloud,
she raises her voice in the public square;
on top of the wall she cries out,
at the city gate she makes her speech:
How long will you who are simple love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?
Repent at my rebuke!
Then I will pour out my thoughts to you,
I will make known to you my teachings.
But since you refuse to listen when I call
and no one pays attention when I stretch out my hand,
since you disregard all my advice
and do not accept my rebuke,
I in turn will laugh when disaster strikes you;
I will mock when calamity overtakes you—
when calamity overtakes you like a storm,
when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind,
when distress and trouble overwhelm you.
Then they will call to me but I will not answer;
they will look for me but will not find me,
since they hated knowledge
and did not choose to fear the Lord.
Since they would not accept my advice
and spurned my rebuke,
they will eat the fruit of their ways
and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.
For the waywardness of the simple will kill them,
and the complacency of fools will destroy them;
but whoever listens to me will live in safety
and be at ease, without fear of harm.

Anonymous Alexander August 19, 2013 11:27 AM  

Krul,

I suspect our difference has been in confusion of the term "leftist". My argument has been that tier 1 leftists are in fact evil, whereas Josh points out that they are not really leftists if we take the term to mean people who actually believe the social policies they advocate: that's the sole domain of tier 2.

So in that case we are in complete agreement: tier 2 is useful idiots influenced largely by their need to be accepted by the other rabbits.

Anonymous DonReynolds August 19, 2013 11:28 AM  

Maximo Macaroni....."I think this 'cancer' problem is what bothered me about the new Pope's statement on sodomites: "Who am I to judge?" Now, I have heard later that he has explained that and does still maintain that the Scriptures that recorded the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are "operative". But I fear I smell the advancing disease within his first words. If the Pope doesn't have the confidence to judge and to be judged (to quote Ayn Rand) who does? At least Objectivism has successfully fought off the cancer. So far. Ayn Rand for Pope!"

You did not get his full statement. In the same BREATH that the Pope said "who am I to judge" when it comes to homosexuals, he quickly changed the subject to say HIS BIGGEST PROBLEM is Freemasons! (The rest of HIS problems must be pretty small actually.) So he had no problem judging what is probably the biggest fraternity and charity in the world, for undisclosed reasons, but could not bring himself to condemn an abomination of his own Church and religion.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 11:28 AM  

***sigh***

Look at the rationalizations you people will employ just to justify your emotional desire to call Leftists "evil".

Anonymous Stilicho August 19, 2013 11:29 AM  

no no no... those were old leftists who didn't do it right. The new leftists are much smarter than the old leftists and will do it right. So THIS TIME... it will work.

True. On the left, it's always different, this time.

Yes, every policy failure of Liberals and Leftists is because of deliberate obstruction and sabotage by conservatives (in power), reactionaries, and counter-revolutionaries.

They would have gotten away with it too if not for you meddlesome kids!

But I suspect that they are rabbits from top to bottom.

It's turtles. All the way down.

Anonymous Stilicho August 19, 2013 11:35 AM  

Look at the rationalizations you people will employ just to justify your emotional desire to call Leftists "evil".

Nonsense. Leftism is evil. You're arguing over the motivation behind the evil: stupid or nefarious? Josh was spot on with his tiers of leftism. Some in the top tier are fully aware of the evil they do, but they do it because it allows them to collect and retain personal power, wealth, and influence... better to reign in Hell being their operative motto and atheist nihilism being the foundation of their "principles".

Anonymous Alexander August 19, 2013 11:37 AM  

Bingo

Anonymous Krul August 19, 2013 11:37 AM  

Alexander - I suspect our difference has been in confusion of the term "leftist". My argument has been that tier 1 leftists are in fact evil, whereas Josh points out that they are not really leftists if we take the term to mean people who actually believe the social policies they advocate: that's the sole domain of tier 2.

That's not what I mean.

I agree that there is a "tier 1" (I call them the "aristoi") whose behaviors are markedly different from the rank-and-file, but I don't think they're intentionally evil, nor do I think they exert the type of imane control of which they are often accused by the right.

I think the aristoi are rabbits who were lucky enough to get the popularity and influence that all rabbits crave, but they don't know what to do with their influence beyond continuing the policies that they have been told are good, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

You see what I mean? They are not independent thinkers, that's the difference between them and us.

Anonymous Anonagain August 19, 2013 11:39 AM  

"Never? Just to name one example, it wasn't leftists who successfully built the Communist Party?"

The Communist Party exists to undo what is already in place. The Communist Party has no identity outside of redistributing the wealth (mostly into its own pockets) and controlling the means of production (the very lives of the people). The Communist Party cannot exist ex-nihilo - unlike the God it abhors.

Building the Communist Party is no more an accomplishment than Occupy Wall Street is, or some hippie sit-in, or other fucking activists intent on undoing whatever they resent. The fact that these like-minded parasites organized themselves into an official party is no more a measure of success than a gang of outlaws giving itself a name would be.

Of course, Communists always insist all the destruction, lawlessness and misery they cause is towards a greater good, but they never get around to creating this greater good because there is always some evil, greedy, furtive oppressor preventing them.

The Communist Party is nothing but a tumor calling itself a fetus - not an example Leftist success, unless one measures success in capacity for malevolence.

Blogger Booch Paradise August 19, 2013 11:41 AM  

I said foolishness is evil, not Leftists. And to the extent that they fail to repent when being shown to be wrong, I believe that they are evil.

I don't have a great emotional attachment to the idea, nor do I think that the unrepentant wrongheadedness is limited to leftists. I merely read what you said, thought about it, and then disagreed for reasons that I found interesting enough to be shared. If you think that either foolishness is not evil, or that failing to learn from one's mistakes is not foolish, I'd love to hear why.

Anonymous Alexander August 19, 2013 11:44 AM  

Krull,

In that case we'll have to disagree on the motivations of the top 5-10% of leftists.

Allow me to ask this though, if you were powerful, intelligent, and evil - where would you go? The left's desire to social engineer every part of our lives for our own good does not require everyone - or even the vast majority - of its advocates to be evil. But it nonetheless creates the perfect habitat for evil people to conglomerate. This they have done.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 11:45 AM  

The fact that these like-minded parasites organized themselves into an official party is no more a measure of success than a gang of outlaws giving itself a name would be.

Well it does counter the claim that leftists never created anything.

Anonymous Alexander August 19, 2013 11:45 AM  

Krul,

That being said, I'd add a bit more credibility to my argument by getting your name right. My bad.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 11:48 AM  

But it nonetheless creates the perfect habitat for evil people to conglomerate. This they have done.

Exactly. The top tier doesn't give a rodent's posterior about saving the third world lesbian co dependent whales. However, they know it's a useful cause to really the middle tier, which will give them vast amounts of wealth and power in order to save the whales.

Blogger Lawrence August 19, 2013 11:50 AM  

@scoobius dubious "There are three tiers of leftist, and only the middle tier are true believers." Discuss.

This is somewhat based in rhetoric, however there is some level of practicality too.

1. The first group of Leftist is the wealth transfer beneficiary. They are Leftist because of self-interest. They will parrot the usual leftist memes of "racism" and "the 1%" but I think they know, deep down, that they are hypocrites. They just don't care -- whitey gotta pay, after all. They are almost always Democrats in America.

2. The second group are the protesters, the people crying out on Facebook on behalf of the "oppressed" and the sins of their fathers. There is a lot of variety in this group. You might have the hippie environmentalist or the communist artist. There are folks who preach against Christianity and gay rights activists. Of course you have feminist shrills, too. They really believe, to the core, that the various -isms of the world (racism, sexism, etc...) are among the most evil expressions mankind has conceived of. They are Democrats in America, generally.

3. The intelligentsia and the puppeteers. These people know Leftism is bankrupt of both morality and sense, but it benefits them and keeps the other classes safely insulated from them. They are actually similar to the first group, except they are generally educated and NOT poor (they still tend to be beneficiaries of government policy). These are your Alinskyites, your communists and community organizers. You have politicians, bankers and many corporate executives. They inflame public opinion about this issue or that event, in order to transfer more wealth and power to them. They belong to both major American political parties, too. There are just as many Republican Leftists, at this level, as Democrat Leftists.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 11:53 AM  

"
Well it does counter the claim that leftists never created anything."

That wasn't the claim that was made.

Vox and I were speaking to a specific kind of joiner.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 11:54 AM  

The reason political discourse resembles monkeys in a cage throwing feces at each other is because the middle tier of the right and the left accuse each other of having the motivations of the top tier. So the middle tier leftists accuse the middle tier rightists of wanting to enslave everyone to Big Business, and the middle tier rightists accuse the middle tier leftists of wanting to enslave everyone to Big Government. So the conversation is nothing but throwing feces and screaming "evil".

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 11:55 AM  

"If you think that either foolishness is not evil, or that failing to learn from one's mistakes is not foolish, I'd love to hear why."

"Fool" in the biblical sense does not mean dumb. It specifically refers to atheists.

So... its a bait and switch.

Blogger JartStar August 19, 2013 12:00 PM  

Regardless of how far left or inefficient an organization becomes it will remain until a alternative arrives because in general people like organizations and institutions. They will at least partially accept a bad one over none at all.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 12:06 PM  

Regardless of how far left or inefficient an organization becomes it will remain until a alternative arrives because in general people like organizations and institutions. They will at least partially accept a bad one over none at all.

I'm sure Enron, Inc still exists as a corporate entity somewhere.

Anonymous Nah August 19, 2013 12:07 PM  

Look at the rationalizations you people will employ just to justify your emotional desire to call Leftists "evil".

Evil is an accurate characterization of people who cause death, destruction, and chaos.

If you don't have any negative feelings about such people, there is something wrong with you. Certainly you will lack the motivation to stop them - which is exactly what they want.

Blogger buzzardist August 19, 2013 12:08 PM  

Liberals do understand power, and they do form organizations. Many organizations, old and new, have been formed by liberals.

But it is precisely because liberals understand a thing or two about power that they move to uproot that power wherever they find it out of their control. Yes, there are a lot of weak hangers-on among the liberals who think they are gaining power when really they are gaining nothing by taking marching orders. But there are people with sense who simply want to destroy organizations and institutions from the inside. If they are able to take over the institution and turn it into something useful for the left, they will. If it simply burns to the ground, so be it.

I'm sure someone like Jemisin would not shed a tear if the SFWA fell utterly to pieces. She's already said that she would bolt and start a new organization if SFWA didn't bend to her call for purges. And SFWA was, as I understand, mostly started by lefties to begin with. The problem is that it offered forums and publications for a few people who were not left-wing to speak openly. Jemisin and others in the organization like her perceived this as a threat to their power. Someone else was wielding the power of the organization, and this had to be stopped.

Of course, in their minds, the liberals at the SFWA are completely justified in throwing out whomever, even if doing so is in violation of all of the organization's rules. The evil posed by someone like Vox speaking out is so great that there is no limit to the transgressions they may commit in tearing down whoever else wields power, protects those others who wield power, or simply get in the way accidentally. Anyone else with power must be stopped at all costs. This is how modern liberals understand power, and their actions provide ample evidence of their power ideology in action.

Anonymous Krul August 19, 2013 12:08 PM  

Alexander - Allow me to ask this though, if you were powerful, intelligent, and evil - where would you go? The left's desire to social engineer every part of our lives for our own good does not require everyone - or even the vast majority - of its advocates to be evil. But it nonetheless creates the perfect habitat for evil people to conglomerate. This they have done.

Forgive me, but what do you mean by "evil"? Do you think they're closet diabolists? Or do you think they're glorified hypocrites, thieves and frauds?

I agree that the aristoi benefit materially by manipulation of the hoi polloi, but there's an essential difference. I don't think they manipulate in order to gain wealth, I think they gain wealth in order to manipulate.

The rabbits are not independent thinkers; they're unable to really value anything except the recognition of others. Therefore everthing they do is ultimately for the purpose of winning popularity/influence for themselves, even though they don't actually want to do anything WITH the influence. This also means they have no problem breaking their avowed morals if they think it won't harm their popularity.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 12:09 PM  


"If you don't have any negative feelings about such people, there is something wrong with you. Certainly you will lack the motivation to stop them - which is exactly what they want."

Yet another indicator that you really don't think very deeply.

There are lots of reasons to motivate one besides "negative feelings".

Anonymous Jack Amok August 19, 2013 12:11 PM  

So, I think the problem is people are using different definitions of "evil." Vox and Nate are using a definition that requirs actions be motivated by a desire to knowingly do harm, but the others are using one that only requires the outcome of the actions to cause harm. To a certain extent, the debate is pointless, but there is one important difference. Vox and Nate's defintion holds that the reverses of civilization are not the result of some great scheme by a group of evil geniuses. It's just the result of stupid, selfish people doing stupid, selfish things.

...the left has time and human nature on its side. It doesn't need to be clever.

Exactly.

I wouldn't even say people on the left are stupid so much as they are selfish and solipsistic. Yes, they're stupid too, but the selfishness and narcicism seem to be more defining characteristics.

Blogger Lawrence August 19, 2013 12:17 PM  

"I wouldn't even say people on the left are stupid so much as they are selfish and solipsistic. Yes, they're stupid too, but the selfishness and narcicism seem to be more defining characteristics."

Spot on. All three groups of Leftists share those traits. But it is useful to describe selfishness apart from self-interest (which can be good). Selfishness it self-interest combined with short time preferences.

Anonymous Stickwick August 19, 2013 12:18 PM  

They don't understand civilization, and they don't understand power. That's why they are never able to successfully build organizations in the first place. So they have to take over the organizations others have already built and try to use them for their own goals.

Same goes for immigrants who come to a new place, only to unintentionally destroy the civilization they so desperately wanted to be part of. In this case, "improvement" is bringing their culture to the new place, not realizing their culture is the very reason they left home. It's all based on magical thinking. When someone asked a Mexican why America was nicer than Mexico, even though they are part of the same continent, he responded that Americans have it better, because they got the part of the continent with the paved roads. No doubt left-wing parasites have their own version of paved roads to explain why successful organizations were all created by people other than themselves, but it's not yet clear to me what that is.

Anonymous civilServant August 19, 2013 12:22 PM  

They never learn. They don't understand civilization, and they don't understand power. That's why they are never able to successfully build organizations in the first place.

This applies to libertarians as well.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 12:25 PM  

Vox and Nate's defintion holds that the reverses of civilization are not the result of some great scheme by a group of evil geniuses. It's just the result of stupid, selfish people doing stupid, selfish things.

Exactly. People respond to incentives. The banksters tanking the economy might be doing so because they hate America or because they're evil joos...or they could be just responding to the incentives in the system.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 12:26 PM  

No doubt left-wing parasites have their own version of paved roads to explain why successful organizations were all created by people other than themselves, but it's not yet clear to me what that is.

White privilege and patriarchy.

Anonymous DonReynolds August 19, 2013 12:27 PM  

The Evil Party (Democrat) does not need to be particularly clever or smart when their main opponent is the Stupid Party (Republican).

Blogger Lawrence August 19, 2013 12:28 PM  

"This applies to libertarians as well."

A lot of them, yes. It is possible to agree with most libertarian ideals, but as Vox does, disagree with their destructive views on open borders and free trade. Still, as loony as many libertarians can be they are nevertheless far closer to reality than their socialist and conservative counterparts.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 12:31 PM  

"This applies to libertarians as well."

except that unlike the leftist joiners... libertarians have a history of actually building companies that last.

Blogger Booch Paradise August 19, 2013 12:31 PM  

@nate "Fool" in the biblical sense does not mean dumb. It specifically refers to atheists.

Psalm 14:1 says "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'". But that would be more a characterization of fools then a definition.

Strongs defines the word as
"1) be foolish, foolish
a) (subst)
1) of one who despises wisdom
2) of one who mocks when guilty
3) of one who is quarrelsome
4) of one who is licentious"

I will concede that not all repeated failures are a mark of foolishness. But the characteristic way in which leftists do it, which is in the face of rebuke and instruction, is a mark of foolishness.

Pro 15:5 A fool despiseth his father's instruction: but he that regardeth reproof is prudent

Pro 17:10 A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool.

Anonymous Stickwick August 19, 2013 12:38 PM  

White privilege and patriarchy.

That came to mind -- we got the part of the world with all the white males -- but it's so blatantly racist and sexist by LWP standards that I have a hard time believing they would make such an overt claim.

Anonymous Anonagain August 19, 2013 12:42 PM  

That came to mind -- we got the part of the world with all the white males

No, no, no. It's goes like this. Whites got the parts of the world with all the beasts of burden. That is the ONLY reason that whites have been so gosh darn successful. Because oxen.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 12:43 PM  

Booch Paradise

Do you really not understand that you've just made a case to claim that Downs Syndrome is evil?

Blogger Booch Paradise August 19, 2013 12:46 PM  

@nate

I meant to place in my last comment the question of whether you have a different bases for saying that the Bible specifically means "atheist" when it says fool. I'm not aware of any other reason (there are other verses that basically say the same thing as Psalm 14:1, but I didn't see any that didn't also seem to be more characterizations rather than definitions).

Anonymous Blume August 19, 2013 12:54 PM  

I project myself upon the rest of the world and get a slightly different outcome. I expect the rest of the world to be lazy gluttonous assholes who wish nothing more than to spend all day on the beach smoking cigars, drinking scotch and reading. Any work I might do is just because food, cigars and scotch cost money. Thus I am never surprised when someone is to lazy to work but I am angry. I am on the other hand always surprised at how dumb people are. For the purposes of internet arguements I am liberal. Though I find these umbrella definitions really dont work for anyone.

Anonymous Anonagain August 19, 2013 12:55 PM  

Benjamin Franklin must have tied that kite to an oxen that was plowing the fields. Without that oxen on hand, whites would never have discovered electricity. Ole Benjamin also partook of the first-ever beef cooked by electricity on that same day...

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 12:58 PM  

"(there are other verses that basically say the same thing as Psalm 14:1, but I didn't see any that didn't also seem to be more characterizations rather than definitions)"

Given that there are multiple verses that say the same thing... perhaps you should draw a different conclusion besides "fool just means dumb"

Blogger Scott August 19, 2013 1:04 PM  

Sue? Really?

Anonymous Jack Amok August 19, 2013 1:09 PM  

I project myself upon the rest of the world ... I am on the other hand always surprised at how dumb people are. For the purposes of internet arguements I am liberal.

Sums up a liberal prety well. Projects his own motivations onto everyone else and assumes everyone else is dumber than he is.

Blogger Andre B August 19, 2013 1:09 PM  

Scoobius, could you please recommend some books by Wendell Berry? He has written a lot of stuff. No fiction, please, I have given up trying to read fiction, I just can't do it.

Anonymous civilServant August 19, 2013 1:09 PM  

as loony as many libertarians can be they are nevertheless far closer to reality than their socialist and conservative counterparts

True. But look at where they are going. Their ideas are unsustainable outside of a society which sustains them but which they cannot construct. In many ways they are just as parasitic as the political left which they decry. They say they seek independence but what they really seek is dependence on their own terms. If ever they have full independence thrust upon them they immediately will seek out the nearest state they can find.

except that unlike the leftist joiners... libertarians have a history of actually building companies that last.

If you have a list of companies built by libertarians contrasted with a list of companies built by non-libertarians I would appreciate seeing it.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 1:24 PM  

". Their ideas are unsustainable outside of a society which sustains them but which they cannot construct."

You're a moron. You're living in a country founded by libertarians.

"If you have a list of companies built by libertarians contrasted with a list of companies built by non-libertarians I would appreciate seeing it."

Libertarians make up a tiny percentage of the population. Obviously the number of companies they create reflects that. Never the less per capita I would be shocked if libertarians don't create much more than anyone else.

Being a blithering idiot totally devoid of skills of observation... I doubt you'll understand any of this.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 1:28 PM  

If you have a list of companies built by libertarians contrasted with a list of companies built by non-libertarians I would appreciate seeing it.

Whole foods, Amazon, overstock.com, Koch Industries, BB&T, Paypal...

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 1:34 PM  

Also... Thomas Edison was something of a libertarian... which makes one wonder if CivilServant has ever heard of a little company called General Electric...

Anonymous Alexander August 19, 2013 1:51 PM  

Krul,

I believe there are people who deliberately act to harm others simply to show that they can. Fortunately, I also believe this number of people is very, very small and not really what any of us are talking about.

However, I would still lump into "evil" people who although they may be responding to incentives are nonetheless knowingly causing harm many orders of magnitude greater than the benefit to themselves.

For instance, if a leader knows full well that importing tens of millions of third-worlders will effectively wipe out that native population and condemn a once prosperous civilization to third-world barbarism, then regardless of the fact that they may have powerful incentives to agitate and promote such, they are committing evil.

The lesser politicians who see the goodies but can't recognize the costs are just being opportunists, the overwhelming masses of lefties who truly believe that this will lead to a multicultural utopia are useful idiots, and the dregs of the party don't give a shit one way or another as long as they get the foodstamps and obamaphonez.

I do recognize that the general conversation seems to have moved on, but Krul asked me a question and deserved an answer.

Anonymous Blume August 19, 2013 1:58 PM  

I am sorry but if your smart and evil you would go to wall.street and work in investment banking. If your dumb and evil you go into politics.

Anonymous Nah August 19, 2013 2:11 PM  

Yet another indicator that you really don't think very deeply.

There are lots of reasons to motivate one besides "negative feelings".


Yet another indicator that you are a fool.

No war, ever, has been won without hating the enemy. War cannot be won without hating the enemy. The Left certainly hates the Right.

Wars are won by demoralizing the enemy (i.e., operating on his feelings) and convincing him to quit or lapse into apathy. The Left has done this very effectively to the Right.

The Left has very effectively sought to forbid or constrain any expression of Rightist anger at the Left, while encouraging all forms of expression of unrestrained Leftist anger at the Right.

Anonymous Sigyn August 19, 2013 2:18 PM  

I believe there are people who deliberately act to harm others simply to show that they can.

There are also people don't care if the things they do, or compel others to do, cause harm or not. What they want is the feeling of importance and influence. There are a lot of these, I am convinced, but of course that's my opinion.

Blogger Booch Paradise August 19, 2013 2:23 PM  

@nate
from my first post

"Failure to learn from one's mistakes is not a sign of evil. It is a sign of stupidity."

I would call it more a sign of foolishness


Clearly you don't grasp my point.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 2:31 PM  

No war, ever, has been won without hating the enemy. War cannot be won without hating the enemy. The Left certainly hates the Right.

Hate...is the path to the dark side of the force...

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 2:49 PM  

"
Yet another indicator that you are a fool.

No war, ever, has been won without hating the enemy. War cannot be won without hating the enemy. The Left certainly hates the Right."

Tell us again how one my defeat a buglar by burning down his own house.

Blogger Chad Vader August 19, 2013 2:49 PM  

I'm not a professional writer, but I find this topic fascinating. Could someone please explain to me the benefits of being a standing member of the SFWA? How does it affect your bottom line if you are thrown out of it?

Anonymous Shibes Meadow August 19, 2013 3:01 PM  

I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone gives a damn what NK Jemisin thinks about anything. She's no great shakes as a writer, certainly -- I had never heard of her before the recent scandal, and I am a heavy reader as well as a published author myself. She holds no power over anyone except a few marginal genre colleagues.

And now she's talking about the limits to what she will put up with? Am I supposed to be afraid of her for some reason?

Is it because she's calling the shots over at the Sci-Fi Writers of America clubhouse? As the kids say: nigger, please. Miss Jemisin may be the Dictatrix of the SFWA, but that means nothing in the real world. Mainstream SF of the type the members of the SFWA tend to create is dying. No one really reads it anymore. I myself quit buying mainstream SF years ago because it became preachy, leftist, girly, anti-white, and boring. There is more self-published/indy press SF on Amazon than I have time to read, and most of it is written by people who look like me, who share my culture and values. I spend my money on their product, not on thinly-disguised hate literature of the sort the Miss Jimisin and her fellows crank out.

When looking to make a science-fiction purchase, the question white, male, Christian science fiction fans should ask themselves is: Why would I wish to read fiction written by a colored woman who hates me and everyone who looks and believes like me?

I'm sure Miss Jemisen or one of her friends reads this blog; she certainly talks about it enough on her own. That being the case, I hereby submit to her the following challenge: you bring on your cute little Revolution, honey. I am not afraid of it, nor of you, nor of others like you. Your narcissistic beliefs and opinions are contrary to reality and offensive to the Maker of reality, and as such will fall. Nimrod had his day in the sun; you and those of your kind should enjoy your tower of ego while you can. God will confuse your followers as he did those who worshiped that mighty hunter.

Miss Jemisin and her Revolution are nothing to fear. The ideology she represents is built on a foundation of wishes and lies. The tide of reality will eventually wash it all away. Let us resolve to cling to the Rock of Truth and watch with courage for that wonderful day.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 3:05 PM  

"some believe that destruction was always the aim, but I don't think that is true of the average parasite who joins an organization. I think in most cases they genuinely wish to "improve" the organization and do not understand that their desired improvements will kill it."

This is the important part that so many of you are missing.

This was never about all leftists. it is about a certain type of parasite joiner.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 3:06 PM  

Tell us again how one my defeat a buglar by burning down his own house
Because it shows us how much you hate him and your commitment to that hate. Because he who hates the most wins.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 3:09 PM  

no no see you have to be willing to burn down your house to defeat the arsonist! its the only way to beat him!

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 3:18 PM  

So...the logical conclusion of the idea that All Leftists Are Pure Evil...is to what, kill them?

Funny, isn't that what you fear the leftists ate going to do to you?

Anonymous Krul August 19, 2013 3:32 PM  

Alexander - I believe there are people who deliberately act to harm others simply to show that they can.

No doubt, but I don't believe that such people are directing public policy in the US.

For instance, if a leader knows full well that importing tens of millions of third-worlders will effectively wipe out that native population and condemn a once prosperous civilization to third-world barbarism, then regardless of the fact that they may have powerful incentives to agitate and promote such, they are committing evil.

I don't believe the leaders understand or care about the consequences of their actions. They are interested in popularity and appearing to be good before the hoi polloi, and it so happens that the way to do that is to embrace multiculturalism right now.

It's like VD said, they aren't trying to destroy the US, they're trying to improve it (or more accurately, they're trying to convince the hoi polloi that they're trying to improve it).

Anonymous Holmwood August 19, 2013 3:34 PM  

@scoobius dubious. I've often thought that the best refutation of leftism would be this: somebody ought to buy a farm and then run the farm on pure leftist principles

Yes, typically a disaster. One interesting surprisingly broad exception: kibbutzes. Sasa, for interest, has 100 families (so perhaps roughly 100 working age males, 100 working age females) and close to a billion (USD) a year in revenue. Not bad. Granted, Sasa is cherry-picking and there were certainly failures over the last century.

Kibbutzes still account for about 40% of Israeli agriculture output.

That said, I think these socialist schemes typically only "work" because you are dealing with high-IQ types with strong common religious, ethnic, and political common cause. Exit barriers and social consequences are significant (and known for adults who enter).

Ran Abramitzky had a good article in Winter 2011 JEP "Lessons from the Kibbutz on the Equality-Incentives Trade-off". You can find it online at his page at Stanford.

No, I am not claiming this is a good method even for Israelis; note the Kibbutz crisis of the 1980's, and the unintended social consequences of raising children in dorms to name but two problems.

As a teen, I worked on a farm one summer with a diverse group of people that would make the SFWA very happy until they heard them speak. Socialism would not have worked. At all.

Anonymous CorkyAgain August 19, 2013 3:50 PM  

"Failure to learn from one's mistakes is not a sign of evil. It is a sign of stupidity."

In many cases, yes.

But in others, what happens is a grasping for what Karl Popper called "saving hypotheses". The reason communism has never worked in practice, you see, is because it's never been properly implemented. But this time we'll get it right.

Anonymous Ciconia August 19, 2013 3:53 PM  

I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone gives a damn what NK Jemisin thinks about anything. She's no great shakes as a writer, certainly
Let's be honest, she's better than Vox Day. And if "published author" means that White Book in your link, she's much better than you are too.

Anonymous Sigyn August 19, 2013 3:56 PM  

Is Ciconia the same person who keeps showing up and insisting that his/her fashion-magazine novellas are superior to everyone else's work? I sometimes forget; all these mediocre trolls are starting to blur together into one big smudge of stupid.

Blogger Lawrence August 19, 2013 3:57 PM  

@Holmwood: "Yes, typically a disaster. One interesting surprisingly broad exception..."

I believe Vox has mentioned this phenomenon in general before (not sure about this specific example). This is why the socialism of the Nordic countries wasn't as blatantly destructive, at first, as Soviet socialism. Cultural homogeneity goes a long way into making laws tolerable on the populace at large. If they hadn't embraced multiculturalism and Muslim "immigration" they probably wouldn't have been all that bad off.

Note: this isn't a defense of socialism, it still sucks. It just sucks less when it's applied to a nation that is culturally, ethnically and religiously homogeneous.

Anonymous Ciconia August 19, 2013 3:58 PM  

The White Book was the most condescendingly-written garbage I've ever seen posted. You, sir, are a waste of adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine and so is everyone who bought your book or even agrees with it.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 3:58 PM  

"all these mediocre trolls are starting to blur together into one big smudge of stupid."

preach sister.

how's the bun in the oven by the way?

Anonymous Ciconia August 19, 2013 4:01 PM  

Let's be honest here, it's kind of hard to not feel superior to the people who wrote The White Book, The War In Heaven, and Caliphate.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 4:04 PM  

"Let's be honest here, it's kind of hard to not feel superior to the people who wrote The White Book, The War In Heaven, and Caliphate."

shutup, retard

Anonymous Nah August 19, 2013 4:05 PM  

Tell us again how one my defeat a buglar by burning down his own house.

I will defeat a "buglar" by laughing at his loud, shitty music!

Blogger Lawrence August 19, 2013 4:05 PM  

Are these supposed to be trolls?

Anonymous Sigyn August 19, 2013 4:07 PM  

how's the bun in the oven by the way?

Mobile. Also turning me into a snack monster. Fortunately, we have a superabundance of fresh blackberries, or else I'd be hooked on chocolate.

Blogger Phoenician August 19, 2013 4:08 PM  

And it occurs to me that someone inclined towards conspiracy theory might even conjecture that the reason the SFWA Board refused to publicly identify the expelled member is because they know very well that the expulsion was not legitimate, that it was a sham expulsion, and they are attempting to avoid being sued for damages once the illegitimacy of their action is established.

Dipshit, you will never have one single cent of legal damages ever awarded to you.

If you weren't such a delusional loon you'd realise that. But by all means go ahead and jump up and down threatening them, like the puffed-up pipsqueak you are.

Anonymous Sigyn August 19, 2013 4:09 PM  

Let's be honest here, it's kind of hard to not feel superior to the people who wrote The White Book, The War In Heaven, and Caliphate.

Did you ever correct those hideous characterization gaps in that wall of text you put on dA? Until you do, you really need to worry less about other people's writing and more about your own.

Anonymous Sigyn August 19, 2013 4:10 PM  

Nate, you have to stop saying "retard". Phony thinks you're inviting him in.

Anonymous Ciconia August 19, 2013 4:15 PM  

shutup, retard

Ooh, good comeback.

Nothing wrong with the characterization there. Let's be honest, a Throne of Bones has no likable characters, Caliphate had no memorable characters (and the only reason I remembered a character from A Throne of Bones is because elfy needed at least twenty kicks in the face), and The White Book was a manifesto, not a novel, and didn't have characters.

Blogger Andre B August 19, 2013 4:19 PM  

Is this Ciconia the person that wrote those hilarious excerpts where people dressed like they were getting ready for Brazilian Carnaval?

Anonymous Sigyn August 19, 2013 4:30 PM  

Nothing wrong with the characterization there.

Knew it. You're still the same arrogant semi-literate who thinks his/her writing is impeccable.

Let's be honest, a Throne of Bones has no likable characters, Caliphate had no memorable characters (and the only reason I remembered a character from A Throne of Bones is because elfy needed at least twenty kicks in the face),

I don't remember any of yours, either, but I sure remember what they were wearing. At least you have your priorities straight, huh?

and The White Book was a manifesto, not a novel, and didn't have characters.

So you're saying you don't like nonfiction, and that makes it bad.

How typically atheist in sentiment!

Blogger Tom Kratman August 19, 2013 4:31 PM  

Yes, Andre, when he's not busy holding beads of sunlight captive over night, imprisoning them in icicles. Or when he writes of factories that are devoid of life, but only for the night his overdressed and silly characters are spending there. Of all the pretend writers I've run into, he is quite possibly the most pathetically talentless. He is certainly the most idiotically pretentious.

Blogger Andre B August 19, 2013 4:33 PM  

"when he's not busy holding beads of sunlight captive over night, imprisoning them in icicles"

I actually laughed out loud here. I am at work so people are looking at me funny now. Thanks for that.

Anonymous Sigyn August 19, 2013 4:33 PM  

Is this Ciconia the person that wrote those hilarious excerpts where people dressed like they were getting ready for Brazilian Carnaval?

Yes, and apparently that is her idea of quality fiction. Like my grandmother, she probably watched Lord of the Rings "for the dresses".

Anonymous Sigyn August 19, 2013 4:35 PM  

Yes, Andre, when he's not busy holding beads of sunlight captive over night, imprisoning them in icicles. Or when he writes of factories that are devoid of life, but only for the night his overdressed and silly characters are spending there.

Look out, she's going to retaliate by insulting your books! Oh noes!

Blogger Andre B August 19, 2013 4:36 PM  

So it's a "she", huh?

I demand more of her work!

Ciconia, could you please indulge us with more of your work? I promise I'll read it and enjoy it.

Anonymous Holmwood August 19, 2013 4:40 PM  

@Lawrence. Agree with your post, hence my note of religious, ethnic, political, etc. common cause. Cultural I should have included but didn't. You correctly put it first and foremost. Thanks for the mental clarification.

Have no problem believing Vox raised such exceptions in the past; I may not have ever seen them or may have forgotten them, but they are certainly consistent with my perception of his thinking.

[On Nordic countries] If they hadn't embraced multiculturalism and Muslim "immigration" they probably wouldn't have been all that bad off.
Maybe. No disagreement on Muslim immigration as a faultline that may swallow the society whole. (Note the SFWA-type left was enraged at Mark Steyn simply quoting a Scandinavian Imam who said that Muslims would reproduce like mosquitoes.)

I do wonder if there isn't a malaise, a weakness in western civilization in general similar to the weakness post WWI. We are seeing the long march of Frankfurt school Marxists taking over the academies, and we assume that it's that that's doing it.

Yet look at the bizarre collapse of Japan. Is it possible that most of the lack of growth since 1990 is not due to finance, or wages, or trade pressures, but that the young just do not care that much any more?

(They seem to care far less than they did).

A national project can galvanize a society, a culture, a people, a nation.

If the national project is "we're fat and happy and all is well", then, well, there's not much for the young. Be it Japan, Obama's USA, Cameron's Britain, or Scandinavia.

I spitball here, but I wonder if there aren't problems beyond immigration, beyond political correctness, beyond socialism, destructive though they all are.

Anonymous Sigyn August 19, 2013 4:44 PM  

So it's a "she", huh?

I'm guessing, based on the focus on pretty-princess wardrobing and the failure to get to a plot within eleven chapters.

Could be a gay dude, however.

Blogger sconzey August 19, 2013 4:48 PM  

Leftism is not a political philosophy; leftism is just entropy for organisations. Conquest's Law: "Any organisation which is not explicitly right-wing [and enforce and maintain it's right-wingness] will become left wing in time" is analogous to saying "A body which does not have a functioning immune system will become riddled with disease in time"

Blogger Andre B August 19, 2013 4:50 PM  

Could be a Gamma that's completely obssessed with JRPGs like Final Fantasy and thus he dresses his characters like those sick-in-the-head japanese designers with fashion fetish.

Blogger Andre B August 19, 2013 4:52 PM  

I'm talking about this shit here:

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/188/b/1/Final_Fantasy_YRP_Wallpaper_by_auralife.png

Anonymous Ciconia August 19, 2013 5:02 PM  

I have something against propaganda like The White Book. There's nothing non-fiction about it, it's just a really condescending white nationalist manifesto. And you could at least

Talentless? From the guy who wrote Caliphate and A Desert Called Peace? Baen really will publish anything.

Anonymous VD August 19, 2013 5:03 PM  

Let's be honest here, it's kind of hard to not feel superior to the people who wrote The White Book, The War In Heaven, and Caliphate.

“Uh, I’m terribly sorry,” the woman who attacked us said, her voice languid and melodic. The gold disk on her neck was inset with a large red stone with a carving of an eye at the center of a star and six cabochons of varying tones of green at the points, actually light-emitting diodes. A bead of amber with a fly entombed within, like Ava’s pendant, dangled from the side of her headband, wrapped in fine gold chains. A sardonyx brooch with a cameo was pinned to her coat. “I saw you up there and I thought you were a Selinian, or worse, a Pannonian. I’m Cantianilla, by the way. Cantianilla Vasilescu, if you were wondering. Veridiana told me to wear it with pride because it’s part of who we are, for better and worse. I’m not sure but for what it’s worth, there’s a lot of people with that kind of family name, Vasilescu and Gavrilescu and Stefanescu and a bunch of other people with -escu at the end. Mine reminds me of basilisks. Do you know what a basilisk is? There’s a folktale about a feathered lizard that can turn a man to stone with its gaze. But maybe I’m mixing them up with dinosaurs. Those were real, but they didn’t have a petrifying glare or anything. I see you know Anysia. So, what are your names, wayfarers?”

And here I thought it would stop being funny after a few months. I was so wrong.

Anonymous Sigyn August 19, 2013 5:06 PM  

I'm talking about this shit here:

I'm sorry. There was a whale-tail and then my brain rejected the whole thing.

Anonymous VD August 19, 2013 5:06 PM  

Dipshit, you will never have one single cent of legal damages ever awarded to you.

So speaks the fine legal mind that thinks California bylaws apply to Massachusetts non-profit organization.

But thanks for the free legal advice. Now, go back to stacking the books, little librarian.

Anonymous Sigyn August 19, 2013 5:12 PM  

That excerpt gives me nothing but a pile of talking jewelry. I see no face, no hands, no arms nor legs. I'm not entirely sure our narrator is a straight man, despite assurances that he is, because we see no face, no figure, no arms nor legs--just a lengthy report of Cantaloupe Vascular's jewelry.

This is part of why I think Ciconia is a chick.

Anonymous Sigyn August 19, 2013 5:13 PM  

...And in the midst of criticizing someone else's writing skills, I repeat myself unnecessarily.

I hope I can be forgiven this momentary and highly ironic lapse!

Blogger Andre B August 19, 2013 5:23 PM  

You will be forgiven if you're wearing enough jewelry.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 5:24 PM  

Dimwit Dan is probably gay.

Vox, any idea why this idiot keeps it up?

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 5:54 PM  

"Because I'm not submitting anything to Baen, mayhaps? And don't plan to. Given Kratman's lack of talents, I'm clearly too good for Baen."


BAHAHAHAHAHA

Anonymous Sigyn August 19, 2013 5:55 PM  

That's right. Deviant Art is the place for REAL talent. It's not like hacks ever "publish" there or anything.

Anonymous Josh August 19, 2013 5:56 PM  

Clearly.

Hey, has your rectum recovered from the pounding Larry Correia and his readers gave it when they discovered your work?

Anonymous VD August 19, 2013 5:59 PM  

Vox, any idea why this idiot keeps it up?

Because this is the only place anyone has ever been willing to discuss his writing. Anyhow, it's obviously off-topic, so that's enough about The Greatest Swordswoman in All Carantina.

Anonymous Sigyn August 19, 2013 5:59 PM  

I think I know why Ciconia posts here. It's because trolling the sites of better authors gets her more views of her works than anything else.

Anonymous Sigyn August 19, 2013 6:00 PM  

No more Cantaloupe Cardiovascular. Got it.

Blogger Andre B August 19, 2013 6:03 PM  

"that's enough about The Greatest Swordswoman in All Carantina"

BUMMER.

Anonymous scoobius dubious August 19, 2013 6:11 PM  

Andre B -- agreed, Wendell Berry wrote way too much, and his fiction really isn't worth the trouble, and most of his theoretical work is repetitive. But the one book of his you should read, indeed, it's a book that should be required reading perquisite to voting rights, is "Home Economics: Fourteen Essays".

To my mind, as a man who prefers Confucius over John Rawls, it's maybe the only work of a modern American political philosopher that's worthy of serious consideration. I won't tell you why because I don't want to spoil the fun, but Berry is so smart in that book that he out-smarts himself; that is to say, I believe Berry himself would not agree with what the implications of that book require. Good huntin'.

btw, recommendations for fiction: The only two good volumes of short stories I've liked in ages, but they are both TEH AWESOME!!!11!!

Maile Meloy: "Both Ways Is the Only Way I Want It"
Joe Hill: "Twentieth Century Ghosts"

You won't be sorry.



Blogger Andre B August 19, 2013 6:23 PM  

I will buy that book, thank you.

As for the fiction recommendations, thank you very much but I have all VD's books except "The Last Witchking" and "A Magic Broken" still waiting for me, as well as H. P. Lovecraft's "The Thing on the Doorstep and Other Weird Stories", Walter Wangerin's "The Book of the Dun Cow", Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose" and G. K. Chesterton's "The Ball and the Cross" still waiting for my attention, and I just can't muster the strength to read any of them.

I just find it very difficult to read fiction. I have no idea why.

Anonymous civilServant August 19, 2013 6:30 PM  

You're living in a country founded by libertarians.

Not in modern terms. I believe the Founders would find our modern society incomprehensible and modern libertarianism equally incomprehensible and perhaps even culpable. After all they fought for their rights whereas modern libertarians evacuate to Idaho and Italy. But we may soon live in a society run by modern libertarians and then everyone will re-learn the lesson that it cannot work. I give it a few years from inception to finish.

If you have a list of companies built by libertarians contrasted with a list of companies built by non-libertarians I would appreciate seeing it.

Libertarians make up a tiny percentage of the population. Obviously the number of companies they create reflects that. Never the less per capita I would be shocked if libertarians don't create much more than anyone else.


If you have a list of companies built by libertarians contrasted with a list of companies built by non-libertarians I would appreciate seeing it.

Anonymous civilServant August 19, 2013 6:40 PM  

So...the logical conclusion of the idea that All Leftists Are Pure Evil...is to what, kill them?

Funny, isn't that what you fear the leftists ate going to do to you?


Sniper scopes and woodchippers all the way down.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate August 19, 2013 6:43 PM  

"You're a moron. You're living in a country founded by libertarians."

It must be wonderful to make such grandiose statements without providing context or evidence.


"If you have a list of companies built by libertarians contrasted with a list of companies built by non-libertarians I would appreciate seeing it."

Nate--Libertarians make up a tiny percentage of the population. Obviously the number of companies they create reflects that. Never the less per capita I would be shocked if libertarians don't create much more than anyone else.

SHOCKED! that you make a claim without substance.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 7:49 PM  

"It must be wonderful to make such grandiose statements without providing context or evidence."

Son... the claim that Jefferson was a libertarian is hardly a grandiose statement. The notion that he was anything but would be.

Madison? libertarian. Franklin? Libertarian. Jay? Libertarian.

"SHOCKED! that you make a claim without substance."

You saw the list of names of giant corporations started by libertarians right?

Substance was provided.

Blogger Nate August 19, 2013 8:01 PM  

"Not in modern terms. I believe the Founders would find our modern society incomprehensible and modern libertarianism equally incomprehensible and perhaps even culpable."

Obviously. Because you're an idiot.

Anonymous Toby Temple August 20, 2013 2:34 AM  

FYI to those who are historically illiterate:

Classical liberals are basically called libertarians today.

Modern liberals are what is being labeled as idiots/evil in this thread..... Obviously. Because you're an idiot.

Sorry, civilServant.

OT: Who is this "The Greatest Swordswoman in All Carantina"?

Blogger Tom Kratman August 20, 2013 4:51 AM  

Vox:

"Because this is the only place anyone has ever been willing to discuss his writing. Anyhow, it's obviously off-topic, so that's enough about The Greatest Swordswoman in All Carantina."

I suspect something deeper and darker. Consider the possibility that Dimwit/Chlamydia/ the greatest penman in all of Catatonia is actually a subbie, writing garbage and displaying same, and then cruising the internet in search of the verbal beatings and humiliation s/h/it so desperately needs.

If you think about it a bit you'll see how likely that is.

Anonymous Sigyn August 20, 2013 8:13 AM  

OT: Who is this "The Greatest Swordswoman in All Carantina"?

Cantianilla-wafers from the excerpt.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate August 20, 2013 8:28 AM  

"Son... the claim that Jefferson was a libertarian is hardly a grandiose statement. The notion that he was anything but would be."

You must have been conceived by first cousins. Touting this narrative is factually unfounded.

Jefferson signed into law a protectionist act in 1807. You know, the one that BANNED the importation of slaves. The United States made a boatload of cash from the sale of confiscated vessels and the hefty fines imposed by government, with southern states, of course, receiving a portion of the proceeds from the auctioning of illegally imported slaves. Free trade my ass!

Jefferson pushed through Congress without amendment (!) the purchase of Louisiana from France a deal that included America assuming $3.75 million in debt. “Strict Constructionist”? I think not. Furthermore, private banking interests from two foreign countries facilitated this transaction; so much for his posturing against the “monied aristocracy”.

Under Jefferson, he ordered the confiscation of property and supervised the prosecution of Aaron Burr, who's "crime" was to merely secede from the Union. I thought Burr’s activities were well within the purview of Jefferson’s own beliefs on this matter. Guess not!

Finally, the Embargo Acts and subsequent dalliance with European military matters conflict with Jefferson's principle of “free commerce with all nations”. From the Mises Institute...

http://mises.org/daily/4478

As is the case with revisionist historians such as yourself (and your ethnic companion, Toby Temple), Jefferson is considered a libertarian ONLY by carefully editing his ideas on government; in other words, he talked the talked but did not walk the walk. When properly taken as a whole, his political beliefs advocated a free nation controlled collectively by free individuals, NOT a mass of individuals free to do as they please without regard to everyone else except to respect their inalienable rights.

"Every man cannot have his way in all things. If his opinion prevails at some times, he should acquiesce on seeing that of others preponderate at other times. Without this mutual disposition we are disjointed individuals, but not a society."

Thomas Jefferson, 1801

Anonymous Toby Temple August 20, 2013 8:45 AM  

The United States made a boatload of cash from the sale of confiscated vessels and the hefty fines imposed by government, with southern states, of course, receiving a portion of the proceeds from the auctioning of illegally imported slaves. Free trade my ass!

So you will also claim that Vox is no libertarian. Because free trade your ass!

(and your ethnic companion, Toby Temple)

What does ethnic companion means?

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate August 20, 2013 6:04 PM  

"So you will also claim that Vox is no libertarian. Because free trade your ass!"

Apparently, your brain is on the fritz. Come back later when it is ready and able to make a cogent rebuttal to my statements.


"What does ethnic companion means?"

You ought to know as a vibrant American.

Blogger Fearsome Pirate August 21, 2013 10:04 PM  

The problem is that by comparison to today, pretty much every single President before Hoover, save Wilson, was a libertarian.

And frankly, I'd be damn happy to have a government that spent a mere 10% share of the national economy and funded itself entirely with a few tariffs and fees.

Anonymous Toby Temple August 22, 2013 2:05 AM  

Apparently, your brain is on the fritz. Come back later when it is ready and able to make a cogent rebuttal to my statements.

HAHAHA! You just showed us that you are a complete ignoramus. Try to learn Vox's position on free trade.

And it is kinda ironic as well since you also made this idiotic statement:

You ought to know as a vibrant American.

You must to be completely sure first that I am a vibrant American.

Here are 2 hints: I'm not an American and I am not even in the US.

So better think long and hard first before posting, Shut Up.

IOW, shut up and use your brain properly and avoid such an embarrassing position next time.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate August 22, 2013 7:49 AM  

"HAHAHA! You just showed us that you are a complete ignoramus. Try to learn Vox's position on free trade."

Had you been paying close attention, I was not addressing VD's position on free trade, but Nate's wild assertion that Jefferson was a libertarian. Of course, he disappears when his position is thoroughly destroyed.

So, Michael Kevin Lallana, come back later when it is ready and able to make a cogent rebuttal to my statements.


"You must to be completely sure first that I am a vibrant American."

Everyone here knows you are a Filipino. The men are worthless lying shitbags. The women? They were made for porn.

Anonymous Toby Temple August 22, 2013 8:03 AM  

Everyone here knows you are a Filipino.

So why this stupidity? - You ought to know as a vibrant American.

Eh?

So, Michael Kevin Lallana, come back later when it is ready and able to make a cogent rebuttal to my statements.

And who is that now?

Had you been paying close attention, I was not addressing VD's position on free trade, but Nate's wild assertion that Jefferson was a libertarian.

So?

You claim that Jefferson is no libertarian base on his position on free trade, which is contrary to the libertarian position. Vox's position on free trade is also not the same as the libertarian position. So logic dictates you therefore also think that Vox is no libertarian. Because free trade your ass.

That is like saying that anyone who claims to be Christian but do not adhere to the doctrine of trinity is no Christian.

There. Now that has been spelled out for you surely your intellect will receive a considerable level up.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate August 22, 2013 1:51 PM  

"And who is that now?"

As a Filipino, that name ought to ring a bell, as it typifies your ethnic brethren's inherent ability to engage in savage behavior.


"You claim that Jefferson is no libertarian base on his position on free trade, which is contrary to the libertarian position."

I provided four specific examples for your butt buddy Nate why Jefferson is NOT a libertarian, one of which dealt with free trade. I even provided THE AUTHORITY when it comes to libertarianism as refutation. No where in my argument did I question VD's position on free trade, nor his consistency with libertarian philosophy. YOU are the one dragging him into the conversation.


"So logic dictates you therefore also think that Vox is no libertarian."

And as a Filipino, logic escapes you. Again, VD's libertarianism has nothing to do with my bone to pick with Nate. VD is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, he does not need a flunky like yourself being a White Knight.

Now wipe the man goo off your chin and keyboard, it's embarrassing.

Anonymous yukonyon August 22, 2013 4:42 PM  

Anyone who has ever studied cancers under a microscope will probably appreciate the analogy more than you know. Cancer cells have a variety of characteristics and behaviors which pathologists use to diagnose it. Some that stick out in my mind:

1. Cancer cells phagocytize, or "eat" other cells around them, whether their neighbors happen to be other cancer cells or not.

2. A cancer cell cell undergoing mitosis doesn't do it in the usual duplicitous manner that a healthy cell does. It will split in three, five, or seven different directions, usually sooner than the cell is able to reproduce an exact copy of it's DNA, with the end result being multiplicitous cells which don't resemble the parent.

3. A sample of most cancers typically have cells which are so different from each other, that about the only two things they have in common is that 1) they are all cells, and 2) each one of them behave and look so grotesquely from healthy human tissues

Anonymous Dr. Ed DeVries August 22, 2013 6:19 PM  

"That is like saying that anyone who claims to be Christian but do not adhere to the doctrine of trinity is no Christian."

Since God is a triune being, theologians use the word Trinity to represent the complex doctrine through which man comprehends His existence. Since the word Trinity is not found anywhere in the received text or in it's offspring (the Authorized Version and other biblical translations derived from the received text), many argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a Biblical one.

However, when a person comes to understand the theory that is embodied in the terminology they can not help but find proof of the Trinity throughout the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity is believed by all Christian groups.

Some groups profess to be Christian and do not believe in the Trinity, however, none of these groups are truly Christian because their various perversions of the gospel cause them to have, "a form of godliness but denying the power thereof" (II Timothy 3:5).

The Bible went on to say we should have nothing to do with them. Why? Because they are not Christians. This does not mean we can not love them and share the gospel with them, it simply means we are not to fellowship with them as brothers in Christ.

The concept of the Trinity is the very concept of the existence of God, and since God reveals himself to his children, it only makes sense that all Christian churches would believe in and defend the doctrine of the Trinity.

Anonymous Toby Temple August 23, 2013 1:53 AM  

As a Filipino, that name ought to ring a bell, as it typifies your ethnic brethren's inherent ability to engage in savage behavior.

Is he on the level of fame as Manny Pacquiao? Guess not? Again, you showcase your own stupidity everytime you express that faulty brain of yours.

I provided four specific examples for your butt buddy Nate why Jefferson is NOT a libertarian, one of which dealt with free trade. I even provided THE AUTHORITY when it comes to libertarianism as refutation. No where in my argument did I question VD's position on free trade, nor his consistency with libertarian philosophy. YOU are the one dragging him into the conversation.

You still fail to level up your brain despite spelling it out for you.

A libertarian is not someone who adheres strictly to a constitution. Even Ron Paul admits that there a provision in the US constitution that should not have been there.

As I stated before, your argument is basically the same as the one that claims that a person is not really a Christian if he does not believe in the doctrine Trinity and several other popular doctrines.

And as a Filipino, logic escapes you. Again, VD's libertarianism has nothing to do with my bone to pick with Nate. VD is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, he does not need a flunky like yourself being a White Knight.

That is very ironic to say, when you fail even reading comprehension and incapable of seeing your error despite it being spelled out for you. It seems to even escape you that I AM ATTACKING YOUR argument with Vox's libertarianism as an example.

Now wipe the man goo off your chin and keyboard, it's embarrassing.

Is that how others in the Internet insulted you in the past? Aww! Poor baby!

Anonymous Toby Temple August 23, 2013 3:35 AM  

Wow! Shut Up Nate, you really need to brush up your reading skills.

From your own link - http://mises.org/daily/4478:

"Jefferson believed that peaceful coercion was the perfect republican solution to the worsening commercial crisis. It would avoid war and entangling alliances, keep down military expenditures along with debt and taxes, vindicate the national honor, defend vital interests, and preserve the country's independence."

So Jefferson put his belief into practice:

Jefferson decided it was time to try the experiment of "peaceable coercion." His Republican allies promptly reinvoked the Non-Importation Act that had passed in April 1806 and had been suspended in December 1806, which prohibited the importation of English manufactures which could be produced in the United States, and passed the Embargo Act (December 22, 1807), which forbade any US vessels from leaving for a foreign port or for any foreign vessel to depart from a US port carrying American merchandise. The act required all registered sea-letter vessels to post bonds of double the value of the ship and cargo before embarking on voyages to other American ports. All ships were required to obtain clearance papers and show a manifest of the cargo before departing and to produce a certificate proving that they had landed in a foreign port.

On Burr's persecution: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/thomas-jefferson-subpoenaed-in-aaron-burrs-treason-trial

He was accused of treason. There was only one witness, Wilkinson. So the definition of treason under the US constitution absolved Burrs in court. There were tell tale signs that the trial was also due to Jefferson's personal bias against Burrs. But whether Burrs' goals were just to secede or actual treason, the Cipher Letter showed evidence that he secured help from the British and secretly raised an army.

The purchase of Louisiana was well within the Constitution as interpreted by James Madison.. Still, Jefferson had reservations.

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/lessons-plans/presidents/louisiana-purchase/

He suggested an constitutional amendment but was advised against it due to the time needed for the change which could cost them Louisiana. Jefferson ended up having to compromise. A treaty has been made between US and France and America acquired Louisiana.

So you are wrong, Shut Up Nate.

Jefferson talked the talk and walked the walk albeit succumbing to his human nature at times. He still remained a classic liberal, which is referred today as libertarian.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate August 23, 2013 9:30 AM  

“Is he on the level of fame as Manny Pacquiao?”

Manny is the EXCEPTION, an aberration, to Filipino filth such as yourself.


“As I stated before, your argument is basically the same as the one that claims that a person is not really a Christian if he does not believe in the doctrine Trinity and several other popular doctrines.”

Fuckface, your “argument” was thoroughly debunked by Dr. Ed DeVries!


“Peaceable coercion” is a contradiction. Force is force. The Embargo Acts led to government intervention in unfettered commerce by having the military assist customs officials intercept merchant goods without discretion, a clear violation of free trade and search-seizure. As a result of this legislation, this piece of legislation failed miserably to “convince” Great Britain to respect American neutrality and facilitated war between the two countries.

Burr was not guilty of treason, nor was he ever convicted, because there was no evidence, not one credible piece of testimony, because the “Ciphered Letters” were doctored. Indeed, Jefferson was showing his prejudice toward Burr and used government authority to unjustly prosecute Burr for merely putting into practice Jefferson’s secessionist doctrine. Besides, secession of American territory was NOT considered treasonous by most Americans at the time in light of fluid boundaries.


“Jefferson ended up having to compromise.”

According to Ron Paul, libertarians strictly adhere to their beliefs. Compromise is not an option.

I don’t think it’s because people don’t compromise enough, I think it’s because they compromise too much. And we don’t have enough people standing on principle. For instance, they compromise on the welfare state, they compromise on the warfare state, they compromise on endorsing the monetary system. So I think we have way too much compromise and we need to define what we believe in. We either believe in welfarism and socialism and big government, or we believe in liberty and limited government and the Constitution.


You are getting fucking intellectually destroyed.

Anonymous Toby Temple August 23, 2013 10:05 AM  

Manny is the EXCEPTION, an aberration, to Filipino filth such as yourself.

Yes. Because Michael Kevin Lallana. Great logic, bro!

Fuckface, your “argument” was thoroughly debunked by Dr. Ed DeVries!

Stop embarrassing yourself by further displaying your ignorance.

Burr was not guilty of treason, nor was he ever convicted, because there was no evidence, not one credible piece of testimony, because the “Ciphered Letters” were doctored.

The US constitutional definition of treason absolved Burr you mongoloid.

According to Ron Paul, libertarians strictly adhere to their beliefs. Compromise is not an option.

Not according to human nature, you mongoloid.

You are getting fucking intellectually destroyed.

Dream on, mongoloid. Now go back to your Reading 101 class.

Anonymous Toby Temple August 23, 2013 10:14 AM  

“Peaceable coercion” is a contradiction. Force is force. The Embargo Acts led to government intervention in unfettered commerce by having the military assist customs officials intercept merchant goods without discretion, a clear violation of free trade and search-seizure. As a result of this legislation, this piece of legislation failed miserably to “convince” Great Britain to respect American neutrality and facilitated war between the two countries.

Mongoloid, even before the Embargo Act Great Britain was pissing on the Neutrality Law. The legislation was an experiment, as stated on the link you provided. It was one of the 2 options Jefferson thought was left to him thanks to the British and French seizures of American ships.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate August 23, 2013 10:39 AM  

Still desperately trying to get Mallory, Skippy...


"Yes. Because Michael Kevin Lallana. Great logic, bro!"

No, because of the intense savage nature of Filipinos. Duh!


"Stop embarrassing yourself by further displaying your ignorance."

Take it up with Ed, not me.


"The US constitutional definition of treason absolved Burr."

The issue before us that you conveniently downplay is Jefferson used brute government force in an effort to wrongly convict a man who just wanted to created his own slice of heaven free from centralized intrusion. Hypocrisy at its finest!


"Not according to human nature".

Interesting how you come to Ron Paul's defense one moment, only to throw him under the bus when you got the opportunity. Apparently, whenever you abandon your principles, you have an excuse--"Well, it's just human nature". Scruples and Filipinos don't mix.


You've got to stand for something, or you're gonna fall for anything--John Mellencamp

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate August 23, 2013 10:48 AM  

"The legislation was an experiment, as stated on the link you provided."

So now Jefferson was all about trial and error and seeing how it turned out, rather than sticking by his tried-and-true principles??? His "experiment, rooted in abject government control, completely blew up in his face. Jefferson's approach to enforcing the embargo violated his own precept: commitment to limited government. Sectional interests and individual liberties were violated by his authorization of heavy handed enforcement by federal authorities.


Listen, it is clear you enjoy getting bludgeoned in the face repeatedly by a blunt object. If you want to continue with your perverted obsession with pain, you have my blessing. That is what liberty is all about!

Anonymous Toby Temple August 23, 2013 12:16 PM  

The issue before us that you conveniently downplay is Jefferson used brute government force in an effort to wrongly convict a man who just wanted to created his own slice of heaven free from centralized intrusion. Hypocrisy at its finest!

Finally! The hypocrisy stance. Because a human being failed to perfectly adhere to a standard. Great!


Go preach to the world that being a libertarian is being a perfect man!

Interesting how you come to Ron Paul's defense one moment, only to throw him under the bus when you got the opportunity. Apparently, whenever you abandon your principles, you have an excuse--"Well, it's just human nature". Scruples and Filipinos don't mix.

Because Ron Paul is not perfect like every human being, you mongoloid. But since you are a mongoloid you are incapable of comprehending such basic fact.

So now Jefferson was all about trial and error and seeing how it turned out, rather than sticking by his tried-and-true principles???

Still struggling with Reading comprehension are we, mongoloid?

His "experiment, rooted in abject government control, completely blew up in his face. Jefferson's approach to enforcing the embargo violated his own precept: commitment to limited government. Sectional interests and individual liberties were violated by his authorization of heavy handed enforcement by federal authorities.

Yes. He made mistake. He had pride. He is human. Ergo he is no libertarian!

Listen, it is clear you enjoy getting bludgeoned in the face repeatedly by a blunt object. If you want to continue with your perverted obsession with pain, you have my blessing. That is what liberty is all about!

No no no. Liberty is about being unable to make any mistake according to mongloidism, and Shut Up, Nate is its prophet.

Take it up with Ed, not me.

Let me quote Vox:

It was not Ed who made this stupid statement - Fuckface, your “argument” was thoroughly debunked by Dr. Ed DeVries! you mongoloid.

Let me quote Vox:

Most people do not feign to having principles they do not really possess, but rather, fail to live up to the standards of those principles. What RE's brother fails to realize, as do most people who regularly observe hypocrisy around them and make a meal of decrying it, is that professing ideals and failing to live up to them is not usually an indication that the profession is false, only that the professor has failed. While it is possible for such failures to be a sign of the profession being false, it is far from being conclusive evidence of it.

Failure is not, in itself, necessarily indicative of hypocrisy.


The object lesson demonstrated by your inability to understand human nature is that being stupid is the only requirement that a man can demand zero mistakes from another man and call him a hypocrite when he fails.

Thomas Jefferson was, without a doubt, a classical liberal, or libertarian as referred to in our time. He was not perfect. He made mistakes and failed from time to time. It does not make him a hypocrite or any less libertarian than Ron Paul or Vox.

Anonymous Shut Up, Nate August 23, 2013 6:12 PM  

Congratulations, you have reached Dark White Knight status, Level 20. You now have 15 points to put on your skill tree.


"Finally! The hypocrisy stance. Because a human being failed to perfectly adhere to a standard. Great!"

"that being stupid is the only requirement that a man can demand zero mistakes
from another man."

I never made such claims. You must enjoy playing in straw.


"Yes. He made mistake. He had pride. He is human."

You can only hope to aspire to be a human.


"Is not usually", "while it is possible", and "not necessarily" are qualifiers, dude.
But feel free to write off Jefferson’s consistent refusal to embody his own principles as "the complexities of the human condition".

Your stench has overpowered me, I'm afraid. I need to take a shower. Feel free to wrongly believe that Jefferson is a libertarian...in our time.


I will even give you the last word. It's the least I can do for a darkie who is running on fumes emotionally.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts