Gay Patriot Header Image

Sarah Palin’s Gynecologist* Suggests the Left Needs to Hide Its Snobbery Better

Andrew Sullivan thinks that the left should try to be less arrogant and condescending. Good luck with that.

“There was a giant cloud of smug above Rachel Maddow when she was doing that. Liberals have to be careful not to sound so fucking condescending and smug… and start actually engaging the other side and persuading people.”

That cloud of smug is larger and thicker than the smog over Beijing on a bad day. I’d settle for the left being less deranged and violent; it’s not in their nature to be less arrogant and condescending. The social-democrat left is identity politics, and inherent in their identity politics is the belief that they are smarter and better than everyone else. When Obama described non-progressives as bitterly clinging to guns and religion and Hillary referred to us as “deplorables,” these were not gaffes, this name-calling was calculated to appeal to the left’s sense of superiority.

Let’s face it, any attempt by the Democrat-Socialist Left to pretend they care about working class voters is going to come off more forced and phony than Hillary attempting a southern accent.

*ICYMI, Andrew Sullivan’s obsessive belief that Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy to cover her daughter’s out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy was the “Russians hacked the election” conspiracy theory of 2008; except since McCain lost, the media didn’t have a reason to obsess over it as much as he did.

BTW: Hillary’s #1 Twitter fanboy is still butthurt over the loss; which he blames on… try not to laugh, I dare you… biased media. This guy wanted to be Hillary’s bottom boy as bad as Sully wanted to have Obama’s caramel-colored babies.

Share

65 Comments

  1. Arrogant, smug, condescending, deranged, violent — the Left doubles down on all this as though it had nothing to do with why they lost the election.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — March 19, 2017 @ 2:48 pm - March 19, 2017

  2. Hi V the K,
    It is interesting that your source did not go on with what got said in the clip.
    “I think that we might want to teach by example…” said Barney Frank, and Andrew Sullivan got it.
    I am condescending at times. True. But if you think that this is a problem solely of the left wing side of the political divide… I don’t think so. There is plenty of that attitude to share around here, amongst the conservative set.
    Cheers
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 19, 2017 @ 2:56 pm - March 19, 2017

  3. So Andrew Sullivan is finally seeing the light.

    Comment by James — March 19, 2017 @ 3:01 pm - March 19, 2017

  4. Barney Frank

    a creepy old fag

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/08/12/why-barney-frank-ran-for-congress/

    Comment by John C. — March 19, 2017 @ 3:02 pm - March 19, 2017

  5. @ 2, It is true that the left and the right can be condescending and full of themselves. However, the left has become totalitarian about it.

    Comment by pawfurbehr — March 19, 2017 @ 3:52 pm - March 19, 2017

  6. When you and your fellows are busy at naming what must occur in order to march closer to perfection, you are naturally predisposed to have animosity toward those who dare disagree…. As any honest militant Muslim or American Liberal would tell you.

    Socialist/Marxist-believers are social engineers. Their “invisible hand” is a single middle finger. The Socialist/Marxist-believers have a “vision” which requires a “unified” vision in order succeed. Either everybody sees the “light” of Socialist/Marxism Utopia or they don’t. Typically, at this juncture, the Social/Marxist believers seize the government and smack the herd into Socialist/Marxist order. Some have to be jailed, disappeared, or broken for the good of the “motherland”. The”motherland” is the geographic territory with established borders and a human population controlled by a government with full sovereignty over cradle to grave life of each person in the “motherland”.

    Capitalism is “chaos” where the people have the sovereignty and they choose to be whatever they are able to make of themselves. They are perfectly welcome to believe they are geniuses, clever, full of wonderful thoughts and opinions 24/7/365. The government is highly ordered and operates according to the rule of law which is promulgated by the sovereign people. In the United States, the government is made up of the representatives of the people. That is called a Republic. Any sympathetic genius full of great opinions is permitted to talk, talk, talk while feeding himself and housing himself and transporting himself from the money he has in his pocket. How the money gets into his pocket is up to him.

    By choice, We the People of the United States of Americe have chosen to create certain safety nets to protect the general welfare of our citizens. What the citizenry creates, the citizenry can take away.

    Naturally, all Socialist/Marxist-believers have to essentially find free will to be the enemy of the Utopian Motherland. [See: Hitler, Mao, the Castros, Chavez-Maduro; Allende; and Socialist/Marxist cells everywhere.]

    The conceit of the nearly-Socialist/Marxists is that they see the possibility of having their Utopia circling the drain because their source of “other people’s money” is not sufficient to make it to Utopia or even sustain the superstructure of Socialist/Marxism they have constructed from Scotchtape and cracked clarinet reeds.

    So they go all vainglorious, patronizing, condescending and supercilious. That is to say that their silliness about human nature, free will and earned esteem gives way to being supercilious; bossy, bitchy, bombastic, belittling, pompous potentates of perfidy. When it comes to the useful idiots, the deplorables, the clingers, the hoi polloi, the great unwashed, the vulgas, —- the Socialist/Marxist-believers devoutly believe that the “ends justify the means” and all is fair in the march to Utopia.

    Here is ye olde bottom line. Socialist/Marxists look at what they see as flaws of our capitalist republic and they demand their Utopia as the solution.

    It is like sitting in a puddle of welfare support and demanding that your actual lifestyle on the public dole be raised to the level of whatever you demand in your quest for creature comfort. “To each according to what is desired, from each according to what is demanded.”

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 19, 2017 @ 5:11 pm - March 19, 2017

  7. ICYMI, Andrew Sullivan’s obsessive belief that Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy to cover her daughter’s out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy

    Wait.

    Whaaat?!

    LMAO! 😀

    Comment by Cyril — March 19, 2017 @ 5:39 pm - March 19, 2017

  8. @9:

    and they demand their Utopia as the solution

    Yup.

    And, nah, they don’t need to do a quick check on how that’s working out for other folks… would be such a waste of time, wouldn’t it?

    What do Venezuelans think of the Democrats who love socialism?

    Ami Horowitz wondered, and decided to go there and ask them:

    https://youtu.be/TZuoFceml4w

    .

    Comment by Cyril — March 19, 2017 @ 5:57 pm - March 19, 2017

  9. (and good comments at the Youtube link)

    Comment by Cyril — March 19, 2017 @ 6:07 pm - March 19, 2017

  10. Yes, I once heard an American leftist proclaim, “You can’t allow people to live and work wherever they want! That’s chaos!”

    Comment by Conservative Guy — March 19, 2017 @ 7:35 pm - March 19, 2017

  11. At the risk of being another “cut and paste and run” artist, I am delighted to report that my comments @ #9 above are wonderfully augmented by a conversation with a Dane at Zero Hedge which dovetails with my remarks. It is a very good read.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 19, 2017 @ 8:12 pm - March 19, 2017

  12. @14: thanks for sharing.

    Comment by Cyril — March 19, 2017 @ 8:14 pm - March 19, 2017

  13. Wow, Andrew’s not waiting to have his annual moment of sanity.

    I’ve commented to trusted friends about how liberals sometimes come off like secular Calvinists: they are members of a special minority of moral and enlightened people, and membership to this in-group makes them automatically better than everybody else. They are good, everybody else is bad. Meanwhile, they hold themselves to very high (some might say insane) standards of behavior and speech. And they are also rabid about stamping out any and all heterodoxy, and are willing to get quite bloody about it.

    I’m not insane in making this comparison, am I?

    Comment by Sean L — March 19, 2017 @ 9:52 pm - March 19, 2017

  14. ” . . . try not to lagh . . ”

    Failed.

    Comment by Blair Ivey — March 19, 2017 @ 10:10 pm - March 19, 2017

  15. BTW: Hillary’s #1 Twitter fanboy is still butthurt over the loss; which he blames on… try not to laugh, I dare you… biased media

    I’m taking it as:

    “darn it, they weren’t biased enough.”

    Comment by Cyril — March 20, 2017 @ 12:23 am - March 20, 2017

  16. The real eye-opener isn’t that Peter Of The Daou blames The Media (or anything else, really) for the loss of the Queen-Perpetually-Waiting; one would expect that from someone who is very close (too close) to the campaign or the candidate. I would imagine that Robby The Mook, for example, feels the same way.

    No, what’s truly jaw-clenching is to read the replies to his tweet. All the fandom about how unfairly she was treated and how undeserving she is of any criticism! Why, it’s as if she is a modern day Joan Of Arc who was burned at the stake without actually perishing! Those are the people that society in general needs to be concerned about. One would think that starry-eyed hyper-idealism died about 5-6 years ago, but apparently there are still people who think that rock star-like adulation shouldn’t be reserved only for entertainers. That they would apply it to politicians after the past 50 years of disappointing politicians is worrisome.

    As for Sully, he at least made cogent points about Hillary, and yet his sister roundtablers apparently reacted much the way that Peter Daou’s Twitter responders did. Yet, I’m sure they see Trump supporters as dupes.

    Comment by RSG — March 20, 2017 @ 3:38 am - March 20, 2017

  17. No, what’s truly jaw-clenching is to read the replies to his tweet

    Looking around me, at times — I feel like spotting zombies, all left-leaning, or hardcore leftists, unsurprisingly.

    What’s striking, is the generation spectrum.

    Earliest babyboomers on one end (born late 1940s), and youngest millenials, on the other (born late 1990s). I’m obviously of the generation right in the middle (born 1970).

    These two ends, are the scariest to watch or listen to, when lefties. It is extremely rare I hear any new talking point I hadn’t heard (and warned about by the dad)… in the mid 1980s.

    As for the “right” / conservative-leaning, I sense too much apathy (to my taste anyway), if not downright looking like deers in the headlight, ever bending over, lower some more. “More taxes? Alright. More rules? Alright. Can’t do or say that anymore? Alright.”

    Thank goodness, enough of those, still, and some disappointed center-left people, had their self-preservation instinct kicking back in again at the minute of voting, and could avoid us going full bore into a continued disaster, on last 11/8/16.

    Comment by Cyril — March 20, 2017 @ 4:23 am - March 20, 2017

  18. But if you think that this is a problem solely of the left wing side of the political divide… I don’t think so. There is plenty of that attitude to share around here, amongst the conservative set.

    Prove it, Cas. I double-fricking-dog dare you.

    All of the smugness and hubris is on YOUR side of the aisle. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be seeing headlines like THIS one: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/democrats-real-people-lessons-234198

    Conservatives don’t need to “learn how to talk with real people.” Because we ARE the real people here. Period.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 20, 2017 @ 11:12 am - March 20, 2017

  19. @21:

    they make themselves look like they are in controlled-panic mode, in the preparative night before a major battle onslaught in what is the war of La La Land against reality.

    Comment by Cyril — March 20, 2017 @ 1:29 pm - March 20, 2017

  20. … or something.

    Comment by Cyril — March 20, 2017 @ 1:30 pm - March 20, 2017

  21. Peter, there are two types of people in the world of Cas: real people and superior people. In the world of Cas, when the superior people speak, the real people are supposed to learn and obey. When the real people speak back to the world of Cas, it is proof positive of an act of kindness on part of the superior people when they generously deign to put up with the silliness of the real people.

    For a real people person to contradict a superior people person is the height of arrogance. It is, in fact, an act of reverse condescension. We are all s-o-o-o lucky that Cas continues to cast her pearls before such swine as are we.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 20, 2017 @ 7:00 pm - March 20, 2017

  22. Hi Peter,
    Thank you for your comment. I wondered if anyone would pick up on it. Admittedly, it took quite a while—and with good reason, by the way.

    “I double-fricking-dog dare you”

    As to answer your challenge, Peter; perhaps your own posts are occasionally condescending? After all, if you are the “REAL people,” what does that make us? Oh, that is right, according to Heliotrope, that makes us (or me) the “superior people.” But how can that be–if we are so brain-dead! We are so silly and clownish? So easily lead astray by brilliant feats of Heliotropian rhetoric. Smugness? There is plenty of that here—look at the manner in which those with liberal viewpoints are treated. From your view, it is not smugness, if you are right, or more accurately if you THINK or BELIEVE you are right—correct, Peter? After all, the other side is a bunch of “LOSERS.” Why should I listen to them—they are full of contradictions. And we—the conservatives—well, we are not, are we?

    I have never seen a bigger case of cognitive dissonance as I am seeing right now on this site. Political behavior that would have you frothing with rage if done by the just defeated opposition is mildly “tsked, tsked” … I think I remember V the K stating that things will be better when Trump et al stop falling over their nut sacks! We will call out pedophilia with Milo! Oh goodness gracious me! Ladies and Gentlemen! We have just had the head of the FBI confirm for us there is an ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign and the possibility of its coordination with Russian interests. Let us add that Comey clearly stated that there is no evidence concerning President Trump’s claims that Obama wiretapped him during the election campaign. And what do we hear on this site—mostly crickets. The most usual response here: the FBI and intelligence services don’t have any idea what they are talking about. Right wing weblogs have the scoop, because they have more access to information and speculation than those unserious intelligence services and clownish FBI dudes. Really? The President apparently makes stuff up or forgot he was President, and continues to double down on this claim without evidence, even though he could release it if it existed. Crickets, again silence. Or worse, the claim that “its OK—Its our side and I trust them.” Wow.

    There is something dreadfully wrong happening in our country right now. It is not just a librul feeling of loss. I can feel it here in the anxiety underlying comments I occasionally pick up on and in the studious avoidance of engagement; some conservative commentators feel it as well. CrayCrayPatriot comes to mind–he asks questions. He asks questions which are ignored and/or dismissed. Heliotrope can claim that DT is playing 30 move ahead 12 dimensional chess, and will kick everyone’s butts with his rad kung-fu skills, god-like powers of observation, and awesome team who will bring the promised Tea Party Paradise. I don’t think so. I see a man who has strong authoritarian leanings and doesn’t have much of a clue how to comport himself as President or what that responsibility actually means in this day of instant communication. I don’t think he will be good for America’s democracy. I pray to god I am wrong.

    I have no problem admitting I have been condescending at times. As I told TnnsNe1 in another thread when he complained of my behaviour:

    “You are right. I was being condescending towards you in some of my comments. I apologize for hurting your feelings and being party to you feeling bad by doing this. Unfortunately, it is hard for me not to do this when I get insulted. When I am insulted by someone, even as it pains me (for no one wants to be insulted), I come to the conclusion that those who insult don’t have a better argument that can stand on its own feet, but need to knock the other person off-balance some other way to stop a too close inspection of a possibly flawed argument. I admit I feel condescension then. When my interlocutor further chooses not to answer questions asked about his own beliefs, it only reinforces my perception that they are an unserious individual, and that I did not have to take what they said (especially the insults) seriously.”

    Denial is not just a river in Egypt, Peter. There is plenty of that—as well—to go around the conservative side of this website, not just liberals.
    Best Wishes,
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 20, 2017 @ 11:09 pm - March 20, 2017

  23. There is something dreadfully wrong happening in our country right now.

    “Our” country is the United States of America. Cas/Serenity’s country is …..

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 21, 2017 @ 8:15 am - March 21, 2017

  24. Peter; perhaps your own posts are occasionally condescending?

    Translation: “Peter, I own the power to decide what is condescending, so don’t double-fricking-dare me.”

    From your view, it is not smugness, if you are right, or more accurately if you THINK or BELIEVE you are right—correct, Peter?

    Translation: When we are in disagreement, I am practically perfect in every way whilst you, Peter, are deplorable.”

    We have just had the head of the FBI confirm for us there is an ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign and the possibility of its coordination with Russian interests. Let us add that Comey clearly stated that there is no evidence concerning President Trump’s claims that Obama wiretapped him during the election campaign. And what do we hear on this site—mostly crickets.

    Translation: “These are the FACTS and I double-fricking-dare you to disagree, because I will troll you with mischaracterizations, half-truths, pure fantasy and non sequiturs until you eat the crickets.”

    ….some conservative commentators feel it as well. CrayCrayPatriot comes to mind–he asks questions.

    Translation: “I have proclaimed CrayCrayPatriot to be not only a conservative, but a conservative who proves my hallucinations are actually prophetic pronouncements.”

    At this juncture, I, Heliotrope, will directly address the issues.

    I see a man [President Donald J. Trump] who (1.) has strong authoritarian leanings and (2.) doesn’t have much of a clue how to comport himself as President or (3.) what that responsibility actually means in this day of instant communication. I don’t think he will be good for America’s democracy.

    Three opinions. Not facts. And how does Cas paint Heliotrope for disagreeing?

    Heliotrope can claim that DT is playing 30 move ahead 12 dimensional chess, and will kick everyone’s butts with his rad kung-fu skills, god-like powers of observation, and awesome team who will bring the promised Tea Party Paradise.

    This acid laced hyperbole is not an “argument”, it is stompy-foot petulance. We disagree. Word salad belittling is a waste of time.

    When my interlocutor further chooses not to answer questions asked about his own beliefs, it only reinforces my perception that they are an unserious individual, and that I did not have to take what they said (especially the insults) seriously.

    Dear me. This is not my site. Endless “what if” back and forth on the host site is just irresponsible. Starbucks may choose to furnish free wi-fi for every moocher who goes there to live for the day, but a blog site is not an open door for prattle, no matter if it does occasionally veer on-topic.

    Go to #9 above, Cas, and come back with your explanation of how socialism is possible without authoritarian government forcing the formula on the people. “To each according to what is desired, from each according to what is demanded.”

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 21, 2017 @ 12:25 pm - March 21, 2017

  25. Hi Heliotrope,
    “Three opinions. Not facts.” I totally agree with you. I gave you my opinion.

    These are the facts (this actually happened!) as stated by me yesterday:

    “We have just had the head of the FBI confirm for us there is an ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign and the possibility of its coordination with Russian interests. Let us add that Comey clearly stated that there is no evidence concerning President Trump’s claims that Obama wiretapped him during the election campaign. And what do we hear on this site—mostly crickets.”

    Still … crickets–look over there, squirrels… V the K will double down on calling Comey a flaming hypocrite. He doesn’t trust him. And I guess the US Intelligence services to, right? Heliotrope will avoid the obvious meaning of what I said, and the reported events of yesterday. And the rest of the site will continue to whistle past the mess unfolding before our eyes. Nice rhetoric though, Heliotrope. I appreciated the “acid laced hyperbole” comment. I am sorry I hurt your feelings, but gosh darn it, telling me to go to the socialism well and defend/attack something that you believe in so whole-heartedly seems like a waste of time to me–you are not open to my views, and as you have shared so proudly and publicly before, your purpose is not to argue in good faith, but to rather enjoy acting and thinking that you are putting me in my place by weaving your rhetorical skills to bamboozle and confuse me. I am no match for your skills, and I acknowledge this. I also accept that is your style. So, I stick to the facts as stated above and a simple thesis below.

    As I said before:
    “I have never seen a bigger case of cognitive dissonance as I am seeing right now on this site. Political behavior that would have you frothing with rage if done by the just defeated opposition is mildly “tsked, tsked” …”

    You disagree, Heliotrope? I know… Heliotrope–as you have made clear in the comment sections–these are your guys, and you are more willing to trust them, then any old FBI or intelligence services.

    Comment by Cas — March 21, 2017 @ 6:53 pm - March 21, 2017

  26. V the K, my compliments on succinctly stating the whole Russia-gate Kabuki theater shadow show.

    According to outraged liberals, President Donald J. Trump LIED when he tweeted what the press had been reporting as FACT. English conspiracy bubblehead and hopeless liberal Louise Mensch reported on November 7, 2016 about the FISA Court warrants. The mainstream “press” has been quoting those warrants as FACT ever since. Louise Mensch has been fired from Heat Street she is hiding away in her four-story townhouse in Upper West Side of Manhattan where all the snob libs with money cloister. Monday, Daily Mail really stripped her bare so that her lies and inventions are exposed for all to see and giggle over.

    At 3:35 AM – 4 Mar 2017, President Donald J. Trump tweeted:

    Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

    O-o-o-o-o-o-o-h-h-h ! That is a Y•U•G•E impeachable lie. This is no questionable gamesmanship, this is bigger by far than, say, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” which was uttered looking into the camera from the Oval Office while standing near the Resolute Desk, under which Miss Lewinsky hid while she serviced Clinton’s willie as he spoke with dignitaries on the phone. Trump’s tweet far outweighs Obama’s If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance; If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

    You must understand that lying to the people is nowhere near the outrage of believing the press and repeating what the press has reported as fact.

    There are, however, several possibilities underlying Trump’s tweet: 1.) it is backed by a hold card of truth that Trump will play when necessary; 2.) it is Trump playing the same game the press is playing without regard to whether the press will accept it as properly “Presidential” or not; 3.) Trump is “arrogantly” flipping off the establishment and telling them to “sit on it.”

    Whatever may be the truth, Trump has effectively gotten a whole lot of monkeys chasing their own tails. For instance, Comey is in a hole and he insists on keeping on digging.

    When Glenda Good Witch landed, she said to the “deep state munchkins”: “Come out, come out from wherever you are!!!” Trump is giving the deep state a whole boatload of rope …….

    But liberals must keep up the snipe hunt and cry RAPE over anything the hated Trumpster does. Meanwhile Ivanka’s fashion line is breaking sales records. Don’t you just hate Deplorables? They could just as easily be out boycotting Chick-fil-A.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 21, 2017 @ 7:40 pm - March 21, 2017

  27. (1.)“We have just had the head of the FBI confirm for us there is an ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign and the possibility of its coordination with Russian interests. (2.) Let us add that Comey clearly stated that there is no evidence concerning President Trump’s claims that Obama wiretapped him during the election campaign. And what do we hear on this site—mostly crickets.”

    (1.) Yes, there is. It is appropriate if the evidence supports the “fishing expedition.” Is it OK to wonder if the FBI should also be investigating whether the Russians were attempting to help Shrillary? Or is that something different? How about the FBI investigating that strange meeting on the airport tarmac between President Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, is that of similar weight, importance and probity? Or is this just all political Kabuki?

    (2.) You are correct, mostly. You have taken Trump strictly literally. You say that “Obama wiretapped” Trump. Obama personally took his burglary tools into Trump Tower and skillfully, cut into his wires and bugged the sucker. You fail to note that Trump put wire tapping in quotes. 18 U.S. Code § 2511 – Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited defines “wire tapping> as meaning: intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication.

    The problem, Cas, is that you liberals want to set the rules and shift the goalposts whenever the wind changes and is not in your favor. Conservatives, on the other hand, actually believe in the rule of law. The Gorsuch hearings are showing the liberals at their duplicitous, hypocritical worst. Liberals are so steeped in situation ethics and moral relativism that the concept of the “rule of law” depends entirely on which side holds the power.

    Your side supports a judiciary whose decisions please your sense of what is “right” under the circumstances. I guess you can not figure out how any game, such as soccer is played. Really, it ought to be up to a thumbs up or a thumbs down from the bread and circuses crowd which the state gathers together in order to distract them from the state continually screwing them.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 21, 2017 @ 8:19 pm - March 21, 2017

  28. Hi Heliotrope,
    Thank you for giving me something to work with.

    “There are, however, several possibilities underlying Trump’s tweet: 1.) it is backed by a hold card of truth that Trump will play when necessary; 2.) it is Trump playing the same game the press is playing without regard to whether the press will accept it as properly “Presidential” or not; 3.) Trump is “arrogantly” flipping off the establishment and telling them to “sit on it.””

    You mention three possibilities and one or more may be true. I concede that possibility. He could just be lying or bullshitting—(No. 2 & 3) or he has super duper evidence (No.1), though, ironically, you offer no evidence or argument in favor of this claim. I think it very unlikely he has evidence, but you could be right. The other two are just appalling—the President lying to all for no useful advantage, making it clear that his word cannot be trusted—I commend you for making a purse out of sow’s ear here by turning a vice into a virtue—don’t get hung up on literalness, with or without OCCASIONAL quote marks! My only question for you is this: Why settle for three possibilities? There are so many more!

    Another possibility—the most likely reason, I think—he pulled his claim out of his butt after seeing it first on a right wing blog and refuses to back down because he is worried it will make him look weak, having dug such a large hole for himself. He is hoping that in the absence of evidence, that investigations will hopefully find something, anything, he can use as a screen to get him out from under the rock and the hard place he has put himself in. He doesn’t have evidence to support his claim, Why? Here is my argument: If he did, he could gain incredible political advantage by showing it. DT is all about imposing his will and gaining advantage (and he is getting his butt kicked right now, which he does not like). He would use this advantage if he had it. He doesn’t, so he has no evidence. Add to it the consensus of the FBI and the Intelligence services who have seen all the evidence available, including the “bombshells” dropped by right wing web-sites. You won’t be convinced, but at least I offer an argument against your No.1, which is more than you have done in support of it (Comey & the Intelligence services cannot be trusted!!!! Discount what they say!!!!!).

    I invite you and V the K to consider something other than your three claims (2 and 3 are hardly wonderful anyhow). I can acknowledge, that however unlikely your claim No.1, you might be right—it is possible (if not probable). You both appear unable to consider the possibility I offer, Heliotrope, as #28 & #30 quite nicely show. And I think I understand why folks here are loathe to do so, including you. To do so invites doubt, and doubt will breed anxiety about the chosen one, and whether he is up to the task at hand. And that isn’t good for morale. You would have to start treating him with some well-deserved skepticism. It is much easier and calming to have a closed hermeneutic circle.
    Be well
    Cas

    PS. “Is it OK to wonder if the FBI should also be investigating whether the Russians were attempting to help Shrillary? ” Go for it! I would only point out she didn’t become President. But I would be pretty certain, as would you, I think, that she would be investigated up the wazoo, if she had become President. 🙂

    Comment by Cas — March 22, 2017 @ 1:05 am - March 22, 2017

  29. You would have to start treating him with some well-deserved skepticism.

    Coming from you, that is a hoot!

    You are the queen mother of hypocrisy, Cas. And you do not understand politics. You play the role of “wise observer” and then babble like a school marm herding geese.

    For many of us, Trump was not our chosen savior. Hillary was our sworn enemy. So, it follows that Trump became our President and we are learning about him just as you are. We want him to succeed. He is the best and only thing we have. We know how McConnell and Ryan will dance away the next four years if left to their own devises. They are establishment pros who will do what establishment pros do to get along and fatten their bank accounts. They are as much our enemy as the DemonizingRats are. It is nigh well time you figured that out. No one here has been swooning over Trump like the socialists went gooey over Obama and the Clintoons.

    I love your insistence that a president who lies is something serious:

    the President lying to all for no useful advantage, making it clear that his word cannot be trusted

    Keep your insurance, keep your doctor, YouTube caused Benghazi, ISIS is the J.V. team, the war in Iraq is successfully completed, the Arab Spring, Qadaffi has to go, too many cops are racists, Fast and Furious is a myth, the IRS never targeted conservatives, James Rosen wasn’t wire tapped, Edward Snowden’s leaks about the NSA are just reassurance that the deep state is under control, $1.7 billion actual US currency paid to Iran was not ransom, Obama’s use of a pseudonym to communicate with Hillary through her private, leaky, illegal server didn’t happen, 75% of deaths in Afghanistan that happened under Obama need not be noted, the “new chapter of Diplomacy with Cuba” has been a staggering…. what?, illegal immigration and the crime rate under Obama are as low as they have been in decades, “democracy doesn’t work if we constantly demonize each other”, “our country is stronger and more prosperous than when we started”.

    Yep, Obama not only lied and made it clear that his word cannot be trusted, he embroiled the Treasury, the Secret Service, the Department of Justice, Attorney General Holder and Lynch, the IRS, ICE, the FBI, the State Department, the Secretary of State, the EPA and countless others in his tangled web of deceit.

    So we “Trumpsters” are not too impressed with the mighty howl you socialists/liberals/statists put up over whether Trump “lied” about the level of authoritative truth he had in hand when he tweeted about his lines being “wire tapped” by the Obama administration. After all, the Obama crowd tried to corrupt the Israeli elections and they wire tapped Angela Merkel and they got involved in Brexit.

    Now, Cas, you are to be commended for your duplicitous construction by tacitly giving the president the power to lie if it is done for a useful advantage.

    So, by your own terms, you have determined that Trump had no useful advantage if he lied in this infamous tweet. Who the Hell are you to make that decision and to make it before the game is played out?

    This, Cas, is why we mostly ignore your drivel.

    You are a child of the government tit. We are opposed to you and your sucking if you have the capacity to live off of the government tit. You are owed nothing by anyone. That is who you are pleading your case to. We are the safety net crowd who gets pissed off when you settle down on the dole and demand more handouts.

    Trying to engage us as if we respect you is a bridge too far. Repeatedly, you have been given the challenge to explain how your Utopia can be successfully financed and you immediately run as far away as you can get.

    Then you come back thinking you can chip away at our principles until we smoke your opium and start chirping away about “what if” and “over the rainbow.”

    Try bringing something of substance to the comments. No one here is looking for a reason to overthrow Trump or crying in their beer wishing Hillary had won.

    We are realists. Real people. Not superior sophisticates who live in a fantasy world of their own making. Trump is the president. He has a term to finish out. The DemonizingRats are to the right of Attila the Hun in trying to preserve and protect the status quo heaped upon the nation by the Obama administration. They have ceded classical liberalism to Trump and he is fighting for the Republic and the rule of law and the Constitution and trying to dismantle statism, the regulatory bureaucracy, the crippling deficit, restoring the power of the states, giving capitalism more power by ending crony alliances with regulators and giving the invisible hand of free market principles the freedom to solve the problems of price, quality, employment and choice.

    You socialists have not had a bastard like Trump pee in your “free” soup for a very long time. Naturally you hate him.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 22, 2017 @ 9:00 am - March 22, 2017

  30. Hi Heliotrope,
    “He is the best and only thing we have.”

    I think that is a sad and desperate statement. But it also helps explain why you have your own double standard (or cognitive dissonance?) towards Trump and his actions. It also helps me to understand why you are so closed-minded about this situation, that you cannot tolerate other reasonable alternatives to the three that you offered or the unquestioning nature with which you accept and support his possible (actual?) lying with such equanimity and enthusiasm. Donald Trump could be currently incompetent as a President. But you are closed to that possibility.

    Other politicians like Obama lied. Yes they did. Hilary got hammered for it. Trump hasn’t paid a price for it, yet. I want to point out that you actually offered his lying and bullshitting as two possible options! Why are you getting in a tizzy when I accept that he could be doing that? OK, this is why:
    “So, by your own terms, you have determined that Trump had no useful advantage if he lied in this infamous tweet.”

    TWEETS. Bringing in the UK intelligence service, etc … I grant the thrust of your point, Heliotrope. He could have a useful advantage in doing as he has done so. Maybe he is playing 30 move ahead 12 dimensional chess. 🙂 Devaluing the word of a sitting President, potentially slandering another once sitting President. Making himself look foolish. Alienating allies. Rupturing standards of behavior and increasing cynicism in the Republic. I wonder what would be worth doing that? What is the advantage? None of the options, speculative as they are, look pretty; very disquieting, possibly dangerous. And you are uninterested in that detail (certainly this was not your approach to the other mob when they had power until recently); “… we are learning about him just as you are.”

    “We are realists.” Really? I do not think you are a realist on this issue. Realists look at a situation as it is and deal with it according to their model of human behavior. They are willing to look at all rational possibilities, not just the ones that protect and support their view of the world. They don’t kid themselves but look at the evidence and offer arguments—not just turn a blind eye and say: “I trust my guys more than the other mob.” How is that remotely realist?

    Is this what you mean by realist? If Machiavelli looked at your framing he would argue that you are just supporting your faction by whatever means necessary–rational or non-rational, so as to assert their power, even if your faction’s behaviour could lead to bad consequences for the Republic. That support apparently includes whatever rhetorical device or strategy (including insult, misdirection, and avoidance) you can use to support your team goals. Why? As you said: “He is the best and only thing we have.”

    Be well
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 22, 2017 @ 2:49 pm - March 22, 2017

  31. @33 and @34 :

    For many of us, Trump was not our chosen savior. Hillary was our sworn enemy.

    I concur.

    And that includes many and fresh(*) legal immigrants, like me…

    … who cannot vote, pay yearly taxes in the 5 figures times 3.

    (*) Hint, hint.

    Comment by Cyril — March 22, 2017 @ 3:39 pm - March 22, 2017

  32. Should Hillary-ous Clintonyte had been elected, at that pace, in 4 years from now when she’d re-run, I’m guessing I’d have to start drawing pictures instead of making the case for America’s sake in English.

    Let alone in French.

    Comment by Cyril — March 22, 2017 @ 3:47 pm - March 22, 2017

  33. What the Cas commenter doesn’t seem to understand, is their ideological friends in the US have homologues across the Atlantic who have been turning my fashionable-country-to-chat-about-while-sipping-a-fancy-red-wine-glass-like-nothing-happened-to-said-country…

    … into a sh:thole, for almost 30 years straight. Yeah, pun intended.

    And ” I don’t like it” is a quite an understatement.

    I still have family living over there.

    So, I understand real americans who have utterly defendable concerns, in order to NOT follow the same suicidal path.

    Comment by Cyril — March 22, 2017 @ 4:03 pm - March 22, 2017

  34. But it also helps explain why you have your own double standard (or cognitive dissonance?) towards Trump and his actions. It also helps me to understand why you are so closed-minded about this situation,…

    That is stupidity made into a gold plated turd.

    I have no living saints in my world, not am I hopelessly awaiting one. But speaking of saints, here, once again is Latantius: “The first point of wisdom is to discern what is false, the second to know what is true.” I am skeptical about everyone, especially you. Your gums flap, but nothing much is accomplished by your perpetual babbling. Trump is anti-socialism, so I cleave to him for that. You utterly refuse to acknowledge that fact. You favor anyone who is socialist. Do you see that everything you load on me applies to yourself from my perspective?

    Silly goose that you are, you somehow think that by dodging your belief system of statism as “mother-and care-taker” that you can “independently” attack my adherence to the rule of law, the ordered state and the free market economy.

    Trump has flaws. Just like you. Just like me. If that is some revealing epiphany for you, you must be some hell- of-a snowflake naif.

    Donald Trump could be currently incompetent as a President. But you are closed to that possibility.

    There you go again. That is a meaningless bat-sh*t crazy statement. If you think he is “currently incompetent” you can speak for yourself. Why in the name of Sauron must I see Trump as you see Trump? According to your bastardization of basic logic, if I don’t see Trump as you see Trump then my mind is closed, shut and sealed. Ditto to you, buttercup. If you had any inkling of Aristotelian logic, you would know where and how you just ended any possibility for reasonable discussion.

    I can count on you to “what if” and “if that” and “why-don’t-you this” and “why-don’t-you that” until the sun burns out. You aren’t even remotely able to conduct an honest discussion or entertain an exchange of ideas. Which makes you nothing more than a Xerox copy of every modern liberal who is just stoked up by his “feelings” about what is acceptable and what must be destroyed.

    Take yourself to a trainer somewhere and get yourself educated enough to carry on a reasonable discussion. Or, just stick with your mates and strut your affirmation stuff for their approval.

    And stop the crap about “our” country. That is a pure fraud and bit of flimflam on your part.

    You are a fabulist about state socialism and you totally refuse to discuss your fabrications in realistic terms. For you to claim I am not a “realist” is beyond the outer limits of your fool’s paradise.

    You should take this post to someone who can explain it to you.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 22, 2017 @ 4:47 pm - March 22, 2017

  35. Hi Heliotrope,
    Well that was fun! If using the term “our country” offends you, is it because it is really “your country” and folks of a different political persuasion are there on sufferance? You appear unwilling to entertain any other options than the ones you offer. You shift your goalposts when I answer your questions (and actually agree with you!) and move to the next insult. I don’t have to “attack your adherence to the rule of law,” Heliotrope. As you made quite clear in an earlier argument, you view the rule of law and the Constitution as being subject to the whims of Presidents–at least those who are “your people.” I disagree with you on that. Maybe that flexibility towards the law is part of the”realism” you assert you have, and of which you appear so proud.

    Finally, “Trump is anti-socialism, so I cleave to him for that. You utterly refuse to acknowledge that fact.”

    No, I get that. But Heliotrope, the conversation on this thread wasn’t about “socialism.” It was about condescension. And as I said to you earlier–and something you still won’t acknowledge: If I do as you have asked of me, go back to #9, and engage with you on “socialism”, you have made it absolutely clear publicly that you will argue in poor faith, spin your rhetorical webs, and act to lead me off topic, all for your own amusement. You will then brag about how wonderful your rhetorical skills are at doing this to the poor “librul.” What a “librul” sap!

    You dislike getting hammered over the stumblings of your own position. I know that as long as I keep the conversation on evidence and logical argument, I just have to deal with the barking I get from you, unpleasant as it is to me. I don’t have to respect assertions using insult, avoidance, and misdirection from you. When you use them, it tells me that you can’t argue your position effectively. If you want me to engage you on your favoured turf of “socialism and its ills,” again–I need to know that there is mutual respect between us, that you are actually interested in my opinion, and want to hear what I have to say without the desire to try and humiliate me for having a different opinion from you. Some trust and good faith would help as well. And there isn’t any between us. I feel very sad about that because there is much to admire about you, but that is where we are right now.
    Be well,
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 22, 2017 @ 5:58 pm - March 22, 2017

  36. If using the term “our country” offends you, is it because it is really “your country” and folks of a different political persuasion are there on sufferance?

    Now that is slimy.

    Cas, are you a citizen of the United States?

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 22, 2017 @ 7:18 pm - March 22, 2017

  37. Slimy, you think? Wow. I am not the one who said:
    1. “Our” country is the United States of America. Cas/Serenity’s country is …..
    2. And stop the crap about “our” country. That is a pure fraud and bit of flimflam on your part.

    So, what is that all about then?

    Comment by Cas — March 22, 2017 @ 9:17 pm - March 22, 2017

  38. Maggot.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 22, 2017 @ 10:12 pm - March 22, 2017

  39. I love word association games!
    Carrion

    Comment by Cas — March 22, 2017 @ 10:29 pm - March 22, 2017

  40. No, I get that. But Heliotrope, the conversation on this thread wasn’t about “socialism.” It was about condescension.

    That’s the bit of information you have missed to acquire:

    Socialism is precisely the forceful, enacted upon, condescension of the few over the many. By the ultimate force — the state.

    The theory may be called Social Justice. In practice, thank you for hinting at it, that’s indeed : Applied Condescension.

    Socialism is the pipedream that a self-appointed elite of planners can condescendingly look down on the productive masses and control them — again, by force of the state — allegedly “for their own good”. The latter becoming societal clay of the former.

    I will stop there with the theory, to come to the practical and what we always end observing, eventually, in trivial terms:

    a bunch of parasites enslaving the suckers.

    And you would know all about that, if you had lived under such a regime — but not as the privileged class of do-gooders at the very top.

    Comment by Cyril — March 22, 2017 @ 11:37 pm - March 22, 2017

  41. Hi Cyril,
    What a lovely idea! Applied Condescension. I agree that there are folks on the left who are condescending. They want to reform the economy in their own vision. Some of the SJWs are also hard to stomach. It is not an attitude solely found there though. There are plenty of folks on the right who suffer the same sense of superiority. You don’t have to be a leftist to feel entitled to tell people what to do or to decide who is worthy enough to get help from society. Sometimes it is necessary: we all agree to drive on the same side of the road and don’t take kindly to folks who want to “do their own thing.” Other times it is unnecessarily intrusive. The left wants to intrude on people’s ability to make economic decisions (and they can certainly overdo that). Then again I think there is regulation in our society that is quite useful). The right tends to suffer from the same issue when it comes to personal decisions. Like socialists who see the social impact of economic decision making, folks on the right get twisted up when they see the social impact of personal decision making, and want to tell people what to do. Each side thinks they are being moral, helpful, and acting in the best interests of society. Both sides wish to impose their will on others. Both sides have major issues. Both sides suffer from applied condescension.
    Be well,
    Cas
    PS. There are sub-groups on the right (and left) that value liberty over government. As long as they don’t need government (surreptitiously or loudly) to guarantee the rules they wish to abide by, I have no problem with them.

    Comment by Cas — March 23, 2017 @ 12:35 am - March 23, 2017

  42. The right tends to suffer from the same issue when it comes to personal decisions. Like socialists who see the social impact of economic decision making, folks on the right get twisted up when they see the social impact of personal decision making, and want to tell people what to do. Each side thinks they are being moral, helpful, and acting in the best interests of society. Both sides wish to impose their will on others. Both sides have major issues. Both sides suffer from applied condescension.

    Well.

    I am sorry, but no. This attempt at blurrying the delimitating lines of the argument doesn’t work.

    It didn’t work 30 years ago for me, and it still doesn’t work.

    The historical and still factually observable state of affairs today, is that there is exactly one school of thought which systematically insists on theoriticizing, rationalizing, legitimating, and finally, using, coercion against the individual to sacrifice him/her to the autel of their societal ideals (when not, downright, their societal interests).

    This is nothing new, and can be dated as far back as Ancient Greece, more specifically, Athen, when the first unexpected ills of Democracy proved themselves capable to degenerate into Tyranny. Tons have been written about it.

    The French Revolution as first occasion for a new popular moniker, socialism, or the Bolshevik Revolution, were only post-humanism revampings of the same.

    You seem to have a lot of reading to catch up with.

    I suggest, for the authors I am familiar with: Bastiat, Tocqueville, Constant, De Molinari.

    I would start with Bastiat The Law.

    Comment by Cyril — March 23, 2017 @ 2:55 am - March 23, 2017

  43. Cf.

    http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G002

    Comment by Cyril — March 23, 2017 @ 3:02 am - March 23, 2017

  44. @45

    And as for the contemporaries who also wrote at lengths about the fundamental contention, I’d recommend, eg, Hans Hermann Hoppe, or G. Edward Griffin — you can find them on Youtube, also, if pressed by time.

    Individualism vs. Collectivism

    By G. Edward Griffin

    https://youtu.be/zv71xEnpWjU

    ‘Hope this helps.

    Comment by Cyril — March 23, 2017 @ 3:27 am - March 23, 2017

  45. Hi Cyril,
    “[T]here is exactly one school of thought which systematically insists on theoriticizing, rationalizing, legitimating, and finally, using, coercion against the individual to sacrifice him/her to the autel of their societal ideals” OK, I’ll bite. What is this school of thought that predates socialism, going back all the way to Athens? I will read Bastiat, The Law. What part would you suggest would be most useful for me to read? I, in turn, would urge you to read Hayek’s Road to Serfdom–especially his chapters 8 -10.

    Comment by Cas — March 23, 2017 @ 6:02 am - March 23, 2017

  46. Hi Cas,

    Feast your slimy limey eyes on this and try running it through chapters 8-10 of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/22/freedom-watch-notifies-congress-of-deep-state-intelligence-whistle-blower-full-pdf/#more-130375

    The proverbial fit is about to his the Shan and our “currently incompetent” President Trump has all of the “Trump” cards in this game of bluster and bravado.

    Feeling knackered, gobsmacked and guttered yet? Got that lost the plot and damp squid kind of pit in your stomach?

    Please to tell how all this is just tosh and you are working up a real bollocking for us.

    Cashole, wanker that you are, I am certain you have some shifted goalpost about “our” country of which you are a citizen in your lying eyes that will completely ignore this turn of events in Trump’s “currently incompetency.”

    Now here’s the scrummy rub. Larry Klayman shopped this to Trump and Trump tweeted a shot across the bow of the Good Ship Swamp Rat. The establishment pols hunkered down and decided to bugger all by running dodgy hearings lest they torch their own house of cards.

    Then Nunes’ collywobbles made him realize that he was about to fall arse over tit and decided to go full Monty and get ahead of the train coming down the tracks dead at him.

    The toffee-nosed establishment is now keeping an eye out for Barney. They are browned off and Trump is not the wally they assumed or expected.

    Your diversions and poppycock is eagerly awaited.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 23, 2017 @ 11:04 am - March 23, 2017

  47. @49

    Well, I thought evident enough: Collectivism.

    A form of government of which being, Athen’s Democracy.

    Comment by Cyril — March 23, 2017 @ 11:29 am - March 23, 2017

  48. And it is best to read The Law end to end.

    But, okay, here are tidbits I like:

    The Doctrine of the Democrats, the Superman Idea, and the conclusion.

    Comment by Cyril — March 23, 2017 @ 11:34 am - March 23, 2017

  49. Hi Heliotrope,
    There was a time when your insults were mortifying to me, especially when you are this angry. I don’t enjoy that anger but I take comfort in realizing that this appears to be most of what you have to offer. You “partially vindicate” 🙂 the claim I have made that your argument cannot stand on its own. You know, I will let Senator McCain say it for me–to start: “It is bizarre, the things that are being said. There’s no substantiation for either what Chairman Nunes said nor is there substantiation for what Congressman Schiff said.” Its a big lot of nothing so far that there is evidence tying the Trump campaign to coordination with the Russians or Obama wiretapping.

    I wonder what “incidental collection” during a completely legal and unrelated investigation means? I don’t know yet. Because I am absolutely certain that you have no idea either. But don’t let that stop you or other right wing blogs.

    “Now here’s the scrummy rub. Larry Klayman shopped this to Trump and Trump tweeted a shot across the bow of the Good Ship Swamp Rat. The establishment pols hunkered down and decided to bugger all by running dodgy hearings lest they torch their own house of cards.” The irony that the “possibility” you raise here is totally ignorable according to your earlier “use” of “logic,” is not lost on me.

    Be well,
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 23, 2017 @ 2:14 pm - March 23, 2017

  50. Oh, but you stunningly misread me. I am not the least bit angry. You thoroughly disgust me. You lie, distort, skew, equivocate, contort, posture, adulterate, corrupt, pollute and pervert the concept of any sort of an honest exchange of points of view.

    You always end up at this same state of bastardization of any scintilla of continuity in your projectile vomiting.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 23, 2017 @ 5:26 pm - March 23, 2017

  51. Sounds like anger (and no content by the way…) to me Heliotrope.
    Take care
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 23, 2017 @ 6:02 pm - March 23, 2017

  52. Hi Cyril,
    The comments section here looks all kinds of screwy in my browser. The first comment I have is your comment at 50. the rest of the earlier comments are missing. Do you have the same look? Could you resend the link to the short video, which is no longer available to me, since the comments are now starting for me at 50? I can get to the longer video from there. The gentleman said some things that left me scratching my head so I wanted to check the context a bit more given the editing. Otherwise, I think I am good to go if you are on our discussion!
    Be well
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 23, 2017 @ 8:56 pm - March 23, 2017

  53. @Cas

    Okay,

    Positive vs. Negative Function of the Law

    Frederic Bastiat :

    https://youtu.be/g1glR0LRT-M

    Individualism vs. Collectivism

    G. Edward Griffin :

    https://youtu.be/zv71xEnpWjU

    Why Democracy Fails

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe :

    https://youtu.be/hUzkZaD1xDs

    In the case of Hoppe, make sure you have a good seat to grok it.

    Comment by Cyril — March 24, 2017 @ 1:42 am - March 24, 2017

  54. Hi Cyril,
    Thanks for the link again. I checked out the Bastiat as well. I don’t have access to your prior comment where you said “No” so, I am going to have to refer to what I think the spirit of what you said was. My apologies. Anyway …

    I am interested in your “No!” The claim from G.Edwards–Collectivism: “The principle that the individual can be (must be, if necessary) sacrificed to the needs of the greater good of the greater number.” GEG then next states that this is a terrible concept because there is “No such thing as a group.” A group is an abstract concept that stands in for the idea of many individuals. A “group” does not exist, and you cannot touch it. You can only touch individuals. And the problem that GEG says is that by making an abstraction concrete, we make a group have rights over individuals. And that is the start of the problem. GEG argues that it is really a matter of many individuals claiming some power over a smaller number of individuals. Thus a matter of mathematics, and mathematics is not a basis for a just system because we can get all kind of weird transitive outcomes with some additional resources accruing to the administrators.

    I hope I have not done violence to the basic premise underlying GEG’s initial claim that he feels sets up his argument. Do you agree? If you are OK with this rather rushed summary, I want to ask GEG the following: A “group” is an abstraction. You can’t put your hands around a “group.” I can accept that. Does it not follow that one cannot put one’s arms around an “individual”? Why is the concept of an “individual” any less abstract than that of a “group”? I can put my arms around an actual individual concrete person (John, who lives down the road), or, if my arms are big enough, around a group of actual concrete persons (John, Jill, and Evan). Additionally a forest is not a collection of trees. A tree farm fulfills that definition. What makes a forest a forest is the fact that it definitely has trees, but also, relationships. Between trees and between the other things that make up the forest. By extension, when I hear the term, “We The People” this already presupposes (for me) that there is far more here then a “group of individuals” (an abstract concept for sure), but also (actual? concrete?) individuals who are bound together by a shared sense of identity, experience, values, and purpose. He speaks of “We The People” without making clear whether this is an abstract or concrete concept for him (after all, I can’t put my arms around “the people,” though, ironically, I can put my arms around a group of people” at least in common parlance).

    What do you think? Is “We the People” an abstract or concrete concept? And why do you think that?

    I apologize for going slowly, but I want to be respectful of the sources you offered for conversation. I hope that is OK.

    I will aim to get into the Bastiat piece next time. As for Hoppe, I am at a bit of a loss as to the argument that he makes concerning the better outcomes that he ascribes to an active and in control monarchy. The claim at the end that he is viewing things as an economist seems rather strange. The king maximizes the value of his property… In order for it to work, it appears he would have to believe that the resources in the country are the property of (or are actively to be oriented by) the king. That includes labour resources, i.e., people! One would have to ask why an authoritarian or totalitarian government (such as North Korea) would fit this description? His claim seems odd, especially for the Mises Institute! I have a number of queries concerning the piece, but I would be especially interested in understanding why you wanted me to listen to it.

    Take care
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 24, 2017 @ 6:43 pm - March 24, 2017

  55. @Cas

    Sorry, I have neither the time, energy, or interest in continuing a discussion which will not change my stance against Collectivism, up to, and including, my death bed — when the hour has struck.

    I do know the adage that “only imbeciles cannot change their mind”, but I do know also that, at heart, I am an objectivist — a consequence among others, is that I have long ago accepted the idea that it is useful, and in fact, salvatory, to recognize Right vs Wrong, True vs Untrue, Facts vs Nonfacts, Ideas vs Acts, etc.

    Hence, how it comes I am also a staunch opponent to moral relativism.

    So, I will only answer this, which is the crux of the matter:

    Why is the concept of an “individual” any less abstract than that of a “group”?

    If you know about someone, an individual, and they give you their phone number, and you communicate, and you agree on a meeting point, and you meet, say, for the first time ever — then you can experience things with senses beyond the abstraction that this individual only was before you met them for the first time.

    And that, is what no abstraction can make up for itself —

    IWO, “ex nihilo, nihil”.

    Sacrificing/destroying things (or lives) that belong to the tangible world only for the sake of “progress” in the abstract worlds (note the plural) will never allow you to go in reverse, and undo/recreate what (or who) had been sacrificed/destroyed.

    Humanely : disastrous, when that happens.

    And History’s record shows it quite clearly, like a record on repeat.

    Hence, how the individual, ultimately, must prevail, even if ideas are still welcome to flourish and be put to the test, with this contingence.

    ‘Hope this clarifies.

    Comment by Cyril — March 25, 2017 @ 3:03 am - March 25, 2017

  56. * IOW (in other words)

    Comment by Cyril — March 25, 2017 @ 3:05 am - March 25, 2017

  57. Why is the concept of an “individual” any less abstract than that of a “group”?

    In a public address, recorded in a March 5, 1931 newsreel, George Bernard Shaw gave expression to the Nazi doctrine of “life unworthy of life” (Lebensunwertes Leben):

    “You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?

    If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, and since you won’t, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.

    In a 1910 lecture before the Eugenics Education Society, George Bernard Shaw said:

    We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living… A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.

    Statists always imagine themselves to be part of the elite group who will do unto others what is basically beneficial for the “group” (in power).

    The “concept” of the “group” is rife with abstraction. The “individual” by definition is one sole critter. The group is either a random aggregation of individual critters or it has some sort of affinity which presorts itself in some manner.

    So, is a baby in a crib (individual) less or more “abstract” than a group such as MS-13 members in your hood?

    Such word-salad bullish*t as “Why is the concept of an ‘individual’ any less abstract than that of a ‘group’?” is beyond any reasonable, conceptual query. It is an abstraction infused with abstraction and meaningless babble.

    But, on the likely chance that “the group” is some sort of “it takes a village to raise a child” sort of word salad abstraction then George Bernard Shaw is perfectly reasonable.

    It takes the Nazis to organize the village so that they can raise the child “properly.”

    A. James Gregor, Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship, Princeton: NJ, Princeton University Press, 1979, pp. 258-264 details how, by 1925, Mussolini and his
    Fascist government had “embarked upon an elaborate program” that included food supplementary assistance, infant care, maternity assistance, general healthcare, wage supplements, paid vacations, unemployment benefits, illness insurance, occupational disease insurance, general family assistance, public housing, and old age and disability insurance.

    In 1939, New York city politician Grover Aloysius Whalen asked Mussolini about the meaning behind Italian Fascism in 1939, the reply was: “It is like your New Deal!”

    There is a perfect example of the “abstraction” which underlies both the “individual” and the “group.”

    I think, Cas, you better think it through again and come up with something worthy of discussion.

    So far you certainly do seem to be in league with the Fascists, the Nazis and the eugenists. Why don’t you just rob a bank? You might get away with it. Once. Why do you insist on living off of other people’s money simply because you are breathing?

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 25, 2017 @ 1:44 pm - March 25, 2017

  58. Hi Cyril,
    Thank you for advising me that you are not interested in the proposed conversation, and I appreciate it a great deal that you have told me that you are not open to having your mind changed. I am unsure why what we were talking about leads us to moral relativism, but OK. As for your example, I still don’t understand why I couldn’t extend the conversation you spoke of with an individual to a group, who I also got to know–perhaps a group who likes to walk around a lake every Wednesday; a group I accompany for the afternoon. Once I talk to someone, they stop being an abstract human being and become an actual human being.

    In any case, thank you for the links. I enjoyed exploring them and thinking about them.
    Cheers
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 26, 2017 @ 12:03 am - March 26, 2017

  59. Hi Heliotrope,
    I appreciate the fact that you have toned down your insulting rhetoric.

    “The “concept” of the “group” is rife with abstraction. The “individual” by definition is one sole critter. The group is either a random aggregation of individual critters or it has some sort of affinity which presorts itself in some manner.”

    So, why is it so hard to understand the following statement: “The group is made up of individuals.” I think it is obvious what that means, though there is no concrete detail. It is totally abstract. A lot of “ones” all together. Why they are together–who knows? We also can consider the following statements: “The group asked the man where the party was going to be held,” or, “The group gave the woman directions to the show.” The word “individual,” is as far as I can tell, a CHARACTERISTIC, just as the word “group” is. What leads to the idea of an “individual” having primacy in your thinking is the PARTICULARITY of a real person, not the fact that it is “a singular critter.”.

    As I read your example using GB Shaw (what a piece of work he is!), he starts off with a group (of “half a dozen people”) that he wishes to malign with characteristics that devalue it, and then moves to individuals–“Sir or Madam”–that he assumes are fit for execution. There is no sense of PARTICULARITY about these individuals even if they are a random aggregation of individuals or gathered under one sort of affinity, say “subhuman” or something else… They are place-holders as GB Shaw uses it. That is what allows him the comfort to make his case–far easier to do this than think of real, flesh and blood, historically conditioned people, who may share some recognizable characteristics, whatever they may be.

    Also, I admit that your last example left me confused. How does your use of Gregor support your claim? to whit: “There is a perfect example of the “abstraction” which underlies both the “individual” and the “group.”” I do not get it.

    Comment by Cas — March 26, 2017 @ 1:03 am - March 26, 2017

  60. The statist, like you, is the problem for groups of individuals.

    Statists aggregate individuals into groups for the purpose of managing and manipulating the individuals.

    All governments must do a certain amount of this grouping in order for law and order to be successful.

    Statists turn to the force of government constantly for systematizing individuals as a means to the ends imagined by the statists as what will best benefit the group of individuals.

    Shaw spoke the truth. Some individuals should run off a cliff because they don’t contribute to the benefit of society and they cause society to continue to spend good money on bad individuals. Socialists think like Nazis, Fascists and demigods, although they overwhelm themselves with the self delusion of altruism. They believe that beneficent Naziism is entirely possible if good people employ the power of force.

    Planned Parenthood is keen on killing the babies of the “wrong” kind of people. School principals even help get the damsels in distress to Planned Parenthood, unless the damsel is the daughter of a politically powerful person who might blow them up in the process.

    You dare not see Socialism in accord with these facts, because you are dedicated to Utopian socialism. That is why you can not even bring yourself to be moderately honest about the “rights” of people on the dole who want more entitlements awarded to them by forcing other people to give up more of their money.

    You have a Government is Jesus sort of “deep belief” system working for you which is “too abstract” for you to understand, let alone express.

    You are a denier, a liar, an obfuscater, a deign sayer, a dogmatist, and an unreasoning specimen of the Utopian statist. You have to be Godless and depend of situation ethics and be amoral in order to accommodate the capriciousness of your ideals.

    There is no basis of honest discussion with you because you never stand your ground and finish the point. Instead, you pick a little, talk a little and change the direction and shift into sophism high gear. In that comfortable self-directed road trip of the mind, you are happily overconfident, cocky, presumptuous and haughty.

    It is fine for you to be a statist with a belief in Utopian socialism. But you will someday have to come to the realization that we who loathe your “ideals” are not lacking in enlightenment. We are down for the struggle of making our way in order to keep as much of our free will intact as is possible and reasonable. You, on the other hand, will have to come to the realization that only your mob tendencies can overwhelm us, subdue us and imprison us in your garden of the unicorns.

    You are like the torturer in the Hanoi Hilton who tells us that if we will cooperate we will get use of a sliver of soap for 30 seconds or an extra dollop of maggots in our rice.

    You will not discuss anything but on your slippery slope terms and even then you contemptuously or imperiously toss in a new conditional or throw out a proviso so that:

    Alice: Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
    The Cheshire Cat: That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.
    Alice: I don’t much care where.
    The Cheshire Cat: Then it doesn’t much matter which way you go.
    Alice: …So long as I get somewhere.
    The Cheshire Cat: Oh, you’re sure to do that, if only you walk long enough.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 26, 2017 @ 10:23 am - March 26, 2017

  61. Hi Heliotrope,

    “You are a denier, a liar, an obfuscater, a deign sayer, a dogmatist, and an unreasoning specimen of the Utopian statist.”
    and,
    “You will not discuss anything but on your slippery slope terms and even then you contemptuously or imperiously toss in a new conditional…”

    I want to point out that Cyril had already decided to leave the conversation. he did so respectfully and with grace. Only after he had left did you decide to enter in!

    Why bother? Why waste your time with one commentator who you think so little of and who no one is reading anyway, here in this backwater of a comment thread ? All I can think of is that you are bored; bored with the lack of diversity of opinion at GP; bored with the agreement and the adulation that commentators offer you here; bored with the lack of challenge.

    Fine, if that is all there is to it, I am glad I amuse you. I would only say that from my perspective, you are yourself adept at slippery slopes, evasion, and changing topics. Want an example: This issue of individual and group. You think I am conditioning and slippery sloping–spit it out. Because If … Then statements are not illegal last time I looked, especially if they throw light on perceived differences. And more to the point–I disagree with your claim, have given examples where I disagree, and have gotten bupkis from you in return but insult, as well as assertion, which you find self-evident, and I do not.

    I think this distinction is important, because it appears to lie at the heart of the distinction that “individualist–collectivist” thinkers use to build their arguments. If you are so confident of the righteousness of your cause and (more importantly) your argument, make the argument that shows the flaws in mine–as you understand them. Feel free to use Aristotle and The Categories, but then, let me use The Politics right back at you, unless you think Aristotle is in contradiction with himself …? Or maybe something a little more modern in the logic realm? What say you?

    Cheers
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 27, 2017 @ 7:07 pm - March 27, 2017

  62. I think this distinction is important, because it appears to lie at the heart of the distinction that “individualist–collectivist” thinkers use to build their arguments.

    I believe this meaningless word salad is a your greatest masterpiece of gobble-de-gook and you should have it translated into linear A and inscribed on your coat of arms.

    All mimsy toves and brillig borogoves go slithy momes and wrath outgrabe.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 27, 2017 @ 9:48 pm - March 27, 2017

  63. Hi Heliotrope,

    Keep evading my beamish boy!

    Sure, some food salad, frabjous day, he chortled in his joy.

    Beware that vorpal blade, oh double-edged sword…

    “In 1939, New York city politician Grover Aloysius Whalen asked Mussolini about the meaning behind Italian Fascism in 1939, the reply was: “It is like your New Deal!” There is a perfect example of the “abstraction” which underlies both the “individual” and the “group.” WTF?

    “But, on the likely chance that “the group” is some sort of “it takes a village to raise a child” sort of word salad abstraction then George Bernard Shaw is perfectly reasonable. It takes the Nazis to organize the village so that they can raise the child “properly.”” Double WTF!

    I love the pyrotechnique (pseudo-French you see!!!) word play you use. Apparently I am not the only one who can mix and match, and drop a connecting idea or two or three… Admittedly, not your best pieces, but hey, I don’t feel like digging up some better examples.

    “There is no basis of honest discussion with you because you never stand your ground and finish the point. Instead, you pick a little, talk a little and change the direction and shift into sophism high gear. In that comfortable self-directed road trip of the mind, you are happily overconfident, cocky, presumptuous and haughty.” You stand your ground, all right, but it isn’t honest. You are just as guilty of the multitude of sins you cast at my feet. Own your own nonsense. If you want me to do as you ask, I need to know that you are not going to hide behind your equally dishonest approach to our conversation. If you can’t do that, what is the point?. You have no skin in the game at the moment, and you act more like a dilettante than an intellectually rigorous defender of the sacred flame of individualism. You have to be willing to risk, Heliotrope. Otherwise, your deafening silence says it all–yes, you are bored, Heliotrope. Bored, bored, bored unto death. You want something more muscular more solid, more grounded, but are too … what? Timid? Afraid? Jaded? If you are tired of the arid desert around you at GP, then give up the bullshit you spout and come straight on–try some uffish thought for once. Twas brillig, indeed!

    Now for something completely different… I have my faults, its true–but then again, I don’t have your luxury of an adoring fan base who basically agree with what ever you say, logically constructed or not. Evasive or not. Thoughtful or not. You live in a lovely cocoon, all warm and snuggly. I get insults, bad faith, and (in the past) barely disguised threats of violence. I can’t help but think that if you were to bust out your signature moves on a site not so ideologically “comfortable” for you, that you would become, um, most uncomfortable, pretty quickly, as people would laugh at what you pull, or worse. Maybe you have the scars to show me I am wrong about that. I would be interested to hear of your battles with the Jabberwock, if they happened. Snicker-Snack!

    Good night.
    Cas

    Comment by Cas — March 28, 2017 @ 12:59 am - March 28, 2017

  64. OK, I have unloaded on you in a most unChristian manner and I do not take any satisfaction in having done so. Now, your feelings are hurt.

    You seem impervious to understanding that limited government and statism are polar opposites. And, for whatever cause or reason, you press the concept of state control over the population.

    We conservatives demand strong evidence that such control is beneficial.

    Benjamin Franklin wrote to Abbés Chalut and Arnaud on Apr. 17, 1787: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

    We are not as virtuous a people as we once were. When the religious ethic and religious foundation of morality become superficial, the population is “free” to construct the ethic and morality which is most useful to them under the times and their peculiar circumstances. But, since nature abhors a vacuum, some force will grow to fill the gap in religious ethic and morality and it is force itself which fills the vacuum. Be it statism based in Utopianism or just raw authoritarianism, it is never “vox populi.”

    Charlemagne was warned in 798 by Alcuin: Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit. [ And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness. ]

    There is the rub: If the voice of the crowd is virtuous, then God is in us and we need no other resource. The voice of the crowd would never err.

    We established the first written ordered government in the history of the world. Our representative Democracy began in March of 1789 and it has operated ceaselessly to this day in accordance with the ordered plan laid down by the Constitution of the United States of America. We are the longest continuous government in the history of the world.

    Benjamin Franklin advised that “without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.”

    And what do the liberals demand? Speech codes. Punishment for “hate speech.” “Political correctness” codes. Barring speakers who may offend. Managing of the “discourse” by social justice warriors who arise from nowhere.

    The liberals know that “the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness” and they manipulate the vox populi to threaten the orderly process of daily life with corrupt and vicious actions. “Black Lives Matter.” This is an insidious, tacit charge that some conspiratorial force is bent on black genocide.

    DemonizingRats resort to this “strategy” first and the only question unanswered is “how low will they go?” All the way to: “”They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

    Painting people as negatively stereotypical with a broad brush is a liberal staple. The natural reaction from us in the trashed caste is to dismiss such elitist superiority hyperbole as the dementia of grandiose delusion disorder.

    Most of us are quite used to being patronized and/or profiled as peasants desperately clinging to cults, dogma, prejudices and superstitions as we clod around in the uncultured darkness of our lives.

    Alinsky’s: RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.; RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

    The DemonizingRats and liberals immediately apply these two “rules” to whatever they target.

    Liberals don’t actually think in the sense that they search for truth or discovery. They strategize. The ends justify just about any means. The goal is rank and raw power.

    Benjamin Franklin observed: “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

    Marxism mesmerizes the useful idiots to help an elite attain power and then the powerful in the Marxist state herd the sheeple to their advantage. All the while, they preach the fairytale of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    You come here thinking we boors and idiots are ripe to buy your Marxists horseshi*t and you get hurt feelings for your effort.

    If you had just one principle to sell, you wouldn’t play the unending intricate “discussion” regulations you constantly throw like some sort of foul flag.

    Your game is what is tiresome. And, for all intents and purposes, that is what you come here to accomplish.

    Why do I bother answering you? Because it annoys you.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 28, 2017 @ 1:18 pm - March 28, 2017

  65. Hi Heliotrope,
    “OK, I have unloaded on you in a most unChristian manner and I do not take any satisfaction in having done so. Now, your feelings are hurt.” Absolutely! I was crying tears all the way through this thread. So thank you. My feelings fly towards heaven on the wings of your apology.

    I have to give it to you! You made me laugh! I mean, how sly do you have to be to offer this gem…

    “The liberals know that “the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness” and they manipulate the vox populi to threaten the orderly process of daily life with corrupt and vicious actions. … DemonizingRats resort to this “strategy” first and the only question unanswered is “how low will they go?”

    Painting people as negatively stereotypical with a broad brush is a liberal staple. The natural reaction from us in the trashed caste is to dismiss such elitist superiority hyperbole as the dementia of grandiose delusion disorder.”

    That is so funny.

    This was cool as well: “Marxism mesmerizes the useful idiots to help an elite attain power and then the powerful in the Marxist state herd the sheeple to their advantage. All the while, they preach the fairytale of the dictatorship of the proletariat” Triple WTF!!!

    Don’t sweat it, Heliotrope. Why do you answer me–you are bored and want to entertain yourself. I get that now. Bravo.

    Comment by Cas — March 28, 2017 @ 9:43 pm - March 28, 2017

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.