I don't have much to say about the recent Arizona shootings by madman Jared Loughner, except this:
Many commentators almost as mad as Loughner have attempted to connect this lunatic's actions to "inflammatory right-wing rhetoric." I won't go into here the long list of inflammatory left-wing rhetoric (and actions) that spill over into open violence. (Michelle Malkin has a good summary — with detailed proof — if you're interested.)
Instead, I'll make a suggestion.
If the Left wants to eliminate at a stroke the vast majority of heated, hated right-wing rhetoric there's a very simple way to do that: give up.
Get out of the way. Stop advocating the violation of individual rights every day in every way. Stop trying to get legislation passed that steals private property for the purpose of funding your favorite social engineering goals. Stop extolling the alleged virtue of interpreting the U.S. Constitution in ways that further Progressive goals. End your advocacy of coercion through government.
Your cause is not noble, your methods are not virtuous, your philosophy is not just. Your ideas are more than mistaken; they're immoral, impractical, and unconstitutional. Change your philosophy and change your behavior and 'the Right' will have no longer have an incentive to fight back against your support for squishy tyranny.
Until then, you can expect the rhetoric to continue. A vocal segment of the American people will simply no longer sit back passively and watch their freedom get corroded away, one bad edict at a time.
Until then, the intellectual revolution to restore it will continue undiminished.
35 comments:
Oh wow! Brilliant! Couldn't have said it better.
You should see what Pablo has to say over at Kiwipolitico.
Essentially this thesis is this:
1. There are a whole lot of crazy right wingers out there
2. I am prepared to argue that any crazy left wingers are not actually left wingers
3. Therefore, there are no left wing people prepared to kill a politican.
4. So because there are no left wing killers, this fellow is a right wing killer.
You are so right. Of course the left ignores that shooter was actually more infatuated with left wing theories.
@RB: Essentially yes, they both adhere to the belief that the collective trumps the individual.
Excellent. You nailed it, as usual.
(Michelle Malkin has a good summary — with detailed proof — if you're interested.)
Ah, yes... Michelle, because some ding-dong brain-dead loser at a rally who can't even spell the obscenities on his banner is exactly equivalent to a ding-dong brain-dead loser who is being seriously touted as a nominee for the Presidency of the United States.
Ah yes, Mr. Ranapia displaying his usual form--mention a relatively harmless leftard and use it to get in a baseless dig at the hated Sarah Palin.
Predictable and a nice illustration of what JP said.
Ah, yes... Michelle, because some ding-dong brain-dead loser at a rally who can't even spell the obscenities on his banner is exactly equivalent to a ding-dong brain-dead loser who is being seriously touted as a nominee for the Presidency of the United States.
I take it that one of the "ding-dong brain-dead losers" you refer to is Sarah Palin, but who is the other and why single out that one from the vast cloud of leftist propagandists, vandals and assailants?
Excellent, excellent post. Spot on.
KG:
You're right I loathe Sarah Palin -- an authoritarian theo-con who is a friend of freedom the way vampires love garlic, fundamentally incompetent and so dishonest she probably won't be able to lie straight in her coffin.
And if you have a problem with Malkin's barrel scraping invocation of people even you describe as "relatively harmless leftard", take it up with her.
Of course, I respond with a couple of dozen links to the kind of Tea Party folks who need to spell check their bile (only two G's in nigger, Bubba), but what's the point? That would be playing Malkin's game by her rules.
Sorry if this offends your Palin-worship, but if Malkin wants to be taken seriously she should be serious. And "Mummy, they do it too, stop being so mean" is the kind of arse-covering I don't accept from children. But I'm certainly feeling a lot more sympathy for Rand's withering assessment of American Conservatism as "an embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality."
I have yet to read any objectivists who give Sarah Palin the time of day. She is riding a bandwagon to save her career, but it wont work because the Republican Party knows she is unelectable as she polarises too much (and is demonstrably dim). The fundamental core values of the Tea Party are moral. Just because a few less than wholly literate people, some religious wingnuts and conspiracy theorists have hooked to the bandwagon, doesn't change the bandwagon, anymore than the Exclusive Brethren opposing the Greens, makes the National Party akin to the Exclusive Brethren.
The automatic, knee-jerk diversion from the individual who committed the crime is at the heart of leftist thinking.
Subscribers to bleeding heart leftist sentiments cannot abide the thought that an individual is responsible for their actions. This is a maturity issue. Small children blame others – not adults. Jared Loughner pulled the trigger. Not Sarah Palin, not the Tea Party and not any right-wingers expressing freedom of speech. If you follow their terrible logic, then all of those people are therefore also guilty and should be imprisoned too… it’s shoddy thinking.
This leftist immaturity is terribly dangerous. Their perennial use of societal blame (and misplaced motherly guilt) to divert and excuse an individual from his/her crimes leads ultimately to a society who can be excused from all actions. I think NZ is seeing more than its fair share of legal policy making founded on this childish logic.
It always concerns me when leftists espouse that every individual is a product of some social engineering. It scares me because they so desperately want to be in control of it.
KSKiwi.
"And if you have a problem with Malkin's barrel scraping invocation of people even you describe as "relatively harmless leftard", take it up with her."
I'm not sure if your brain was fully in gear when you wrote that Craig.
You deliberately chose one of the more harmless leftards on display in order to get in a dig at Palin and ignored the other--far more foul--examples she gives.That was the point I was making.I have no problem at all with the examples she gives and neither did I indicate that.
"Sorry if this offends your Palin-worship,."
I admire Palin and have said so frequently. Since when did that translate into "worship"? And you have the nerve to say that she's dishonest! Projection, much?
You respond to the links and examples Malkin gives with a whole bunch of smears and half baked whining. Very lefty of you, that. Point out anything she says in that post which isn't true.
"If the Left wants to eliminate at a stroke the vast majority of heated, hated right-wing rhetoric there's a very simple way to do that: give up."
So let me get this straight - in order to 'win' a political argument you advocate heated and hateful rhetoric until the other party gives up?????
Exactly how much hate is enough or can there never be enough hate until they quit?
"Exactly how much hate is enough or can there never be enough hate until they quit?"
I don't know Phil, how much "hate" is too much for people whose agenda is to keep stealing from you, year after year, and to keep multiplying the number of ways they steal from you?
Democrats: "We are stealing from you"
Libertarians: "Stop stealing from us!"
Democrats: Stop this hate! All this hate! So terrible, this hate!
Libertarians: But are you going to stop stealing from us?
Democrats: No. Stop this hate!
"The automatic, knee-jerk diversion from the individual who committed the crime is at the heart of leftist thinking."
The entire leftist agenda is based on an immoral philosophy, so it's not surprising that their immoral behavior unashamedly extends elsewhere.
"Of course the left ignores that shooter was actually more infatuated with left wing theories"
Yeah, I'm not sure when Karl Marx became a right-wing text.
"but it wont work because the Republican Party knows she is unelectable as she polarises too much (and is demonstrably dim"
Worked for Bush.
OK, jokes aside, depends on the strength of opposing candidates and alternative candidates, I'd say - she probably wouldn't be their first choice ideally. Maybe we'll be lucky and get a Ron Paul instead.
"And "Mummy, they do it too, stop being so mean" is the kind of arse-covering I don't accept from children"
Actually, when the very claim being defended IS that only the one side 'does it', then evidence that the other side 'does it too' is precisely the most sensible retort.
I don't know Phil, how much "hate" is too much for people whose agenda is to keep stealing from you, year after year, and to keep multiplying the number of ways they steal from you?
Regardless of your position - 'hatred' of the opposition has no place in a democracy - anger yes, but hatred eventually leads to a very bad place.
I find it very disturbing for political leaders to be advocating hatred.
Being from Europe our history is full of the consequences of uncontrolled hatred.
"in order to 'win' a political argument you advocate heated and hateful rhetoric until the other party gives up"
"Regardless of your position"
Part of the problem is precisely this: The false pretending that all "sides" of the "debate" are somehow standing on morally equal ground. This is like complaining that the victim of an armed robbery should quietly accept and respect the 'viewpoint' of the armed robbers, even while allowing them to rob him further.
"Regardless of your position - 'hatred' of the opposition has no place in a democracy"
Neither does wholesale theft and the rape of individual liberty, so we're long past "democracy". In fact, and you probably wouldn't understand this is a European, but the second amendment is precisely there to defend against the kind of tyranny that is in place now. Your calls for acceptance of victimhood in the guise of so-called 'tolerance' are nothing more than a call from the perpetrators for their victims to quietly shut up, and bend over.
Right are not fighting for 'hate', they are not fighting because they want to take anything away from anyone else, and they don't want to steal anything from anyone else. They are just fighting to be left alone and not have their stuff stolen. That's all. They are not aggressors. They are defenders. The left are the aggressors. The days of the right quietly shutting up and bending over and continuing to take it are over - the robbers will be run out of town. If you don't like that, tough, but your stance is not moral, it's immoral. Nobody tells a victim of rape that she must quietly keep being raped and 'tolerate' the views of the rapist. Nobody morally tells a victim of assault that they must keep being assaulted and 'tolerate' the viewpoint of the beaters. Nobody morally tells a victim of theft that they must just quietly learn to tolerate the views of the robbers. Pretending to advocate so-called "tolerance" for the crooks with tired cliches like 'hate has no place in a democracy', is not a moral viewpoint, it's a fundamentally immoral one. The days of the robbers are over, the victims are fighting back, and the perpetrators better get used to it, because it's never going to stop until we see justice.
The best comment yet. Beautiful.
Being from Europe our history is full of the consequences of uncontrolled hatred.
[Godwin ward-off] Are you implying the Jews should not have 'hated' or attempted to fight against Hitler, but peacefully and quietly tolerated his 'views' and actions as their 'opposition' (as you put it)? Because as far as I recall, that's pretty much what they did, and it didn't turn out very well for them.
- DavidJ
"If the Left wants to eliminate at a stroke the vast majority of heated, hated right-wing rhetoric there's a very simple way to do that: give up."
So let me get this straight - in order to 'win' a political argument you advocate heated and hateful rhetoric until the other party gives up?????
Let's map this analogously to WWII Europe to see if the underlying logic is sound:
"If Hitler wants to eliminate at a stroke the vast majority of heated, hated rhetoric against his persecution of the Jews there's a very simple way to do that: give up."
So let me get this straight - in order to 'win' a political argument you advocate heated and hateful rhetoric until the other party gives up?????
Of course the American left are certainly not killing Jews, but their policies are still morally wrong (and in some cases the same as Hitler, e.g. positions on socialism and gun control and the reduction of power of citizens and increase of state control ... the policy road to WWII Germany is not dissimilar to the policy positions of the left ... consider that the left now want to abuse this opportunity to ramp up gun control further and ban even negative words against the state --- something only the worst dictatorships have ever done, and yet nobody finds it worrying that such talk is considered normal now in US political rhetoric. The left want to attack the 1st amendment, they want to attack the 2nd amendment, they have already destroyed the 4th amendment, it goes on and on, and it seems they don't want to stop until the entire Bill of Rights is a footnote in history).
Meanwhile all the right wants to do, is:
- Restore individual liberties
- Restore private property ownership
- Reduce theft (by inflation/taxation etc.)
So terrible.
David.
It's really kinda simple. The usual suspects (not loooking at anyone in particular *cough* public address *cough*) have been dead silent about US politics since, ooohhh, 2008ish when they lost their favorite straw(bush)man to wail about. Obama was supposed to change politics you know. But he didn't, nothing changed and he is just a typical Chicago Democrat with all the baggage that goes with it. He carried on Bush's plan in Iraq, stepped up activity in Afghanistan, failed to stop the seas rising and hasn't close Guantamo. Now you see why the preening lefties in their cages have been so quiet, they're embarrased that their left is just as "bad" as the horrible right was. But now some whackjob comes along with a gun and a random grudge against a local politician but wait! They can tie it to Sarah Palin who is the new demon with the passing in the shadows of W. So they get to make up bullshit about vitriol and hate, which they have had pent up for going on three years now. So cut them some slack, they have been unable to project their own hate since W left and their own refusal to admit the utter normality and banality of Obama but now a freak set of circumstances lets them paint their own hate large on the canvas of Palin. Hypocrisy, thy name is public address commenter.
Also, anyone think it is fricking hilarious that Russel Brown is equating Lougher to Timothy McVeigh? Does he really want to go there? Really???
""Of course the left ignores that shooter was actually more infatuated with left wing theories"
Yeah, I'm not sure when Karl Marx became a right-wing text."
Yep he had the Communist Manifesto in that list of books.
I mean I ask you, how crazy are these people that claim he may have been influenced by right wing talk about armed revolution when... hello? Karl Marx was in his list of influential books! hahaha.
The actual communist manifesto was in his list!! It's only one of the most widely known political tracts in history people, surely folks have heard of it. The killer obviously had.
He also had some obscure work called 'We the Living' on his list. Not many people have heard of that one, and it's author is much less well known, which probably explains why the msm haven't been talking about it, and why blog commenters haven't been saying that he was obviously 'infatuated' with the author's political beliefs.
Democrats: "We are stealing from you"
Libertarians: "Stop stealing from us!"
Democrats: Stop this hate! All this hate! So terrible, this hate!
Libertarians: But are you going to stop stealing from us?
Democrats: No. Stop this hate
Cute.
Because differences of opinion about taxation are obviously thoughtcrime, no, scratch that, actual crimes.
I've got one for ya:
Tea Party: We might start have to start shooting people soon.
Liberals: That's pretty inflammatory. Are you serious?
(bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang, muffled sound of liberal bodies hitting the floor.)
Liberals: See. Perhaps we should talk about the effects of that rhetoric you've been throwing around.
Tea party: Shut up. Look everyone, we're being oppressed!
(Don't retreat: Reload)
or:
Left: Bush is like Hitler. Buy your Kill Bush t-shirts. Bush is the real terrorist. 9/11 was a CIA/Mossad conspiracy.
Obama elected...
Tea Party: Lower taxes, balance the budget, smaller constitutional government. Republicans and Democrats both to blame.
Left: Racists, you oppose black people in politics.
Tea Party: Lower taxes, balance the budget, smaller constitutional government. Republicans and Democrats both to blame.
Left: It's a con, it's big business trying to fool you. We'll spend more of your money and it's all ok.
(enter unhinged young man with interest in politics who burns US flag and shoots a politician)
Left: It's the Tea Party using inflammatory rhetoric about violence
I think we need distinguish between moral and political tolerance here. Political tolerance, which is a limited civil virtue (I'm not trying to denigrate its importance but define its scope)merely says that you have no right to initiate force or advocate the initiation of force against others. (Of course, it does not preclude retaliatory force or such advocacy against a person who has initiated force.)
Moral Tolerance is the idea that you should not judge or that you should not evaluate the behaviour of others even if such behaviour impacts on you. It is another anti-concept that seeks to undercut judgement and to displace political tolerance. Multiculturalism elevates it to the status of a primary virtue which short circuits the evaluation of those "morally equal" cultures
As far as the left is concerned, their ideas, ideals and philosophy all died in the Gulag and concentration camps. Discredited forever — persisting like zombies only for lack of principled opposition and the uselessness of the GOP. They fear the return of their old enemies — ideas, like individual rights and limited government.
The Tea Party is not necessarily an embodiment of those ideas (it is rife with conservatism also, alas) but it definitely has the potential to bring them back into the political debate — and that possibility alone is just driving the Left batshit.
"Cute.
Because differences of opinion about taxation are obviously thoughtcrime, no, scratch that, actual crimes."
The fact that socialism IS theft and slavery is just that, a fact - that is not even deniable, because it is by definition slavery and theft, and EVEN lefties/socialists who know what they're talking about admit this OPENLY, because it is too blatant to be denied. You probably don't realize this, but if you read up you will learn that socialist intellectuals who admit that socialism is theft, usually attempt to justify the theft by claiming that other things e.g. the "greater good" trumps property rights.
Get that? They DON'T claim they're not stealing (which would be completely absurd) - they claim that something else is more important than your right not to be stolen from.
Of course 95% of 'Joe Public' lefties simply don't understand either way --- but while everyone may be entitled to their own "opinions", everyone is NOT entitled to their own facts.
You should read up on so-called 'social contract theory', and you will learn that socialists know socialism is theft. They merely argue that private property rights are not important, and that it's "OK" to steal.
Seriously. If you don't believe me, just Google up on social contract theory. Please. Before bothering to reply further, read up on it.
"(bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang, muffled sound of liberal bodies hitting the floor.)"
Cute, but where has this work of fiction you describe happened? Loughner was a mentally ill deranged leftie whose favorite books included Mein Kampf and Karl Marx's communist manifesto. These are FACTS. Again, you are not entitled to your own facts.
This is the thing with you liberals, you believe you're entitled to their own facts, or you're OK with lying and misrepresenting and distorting facts.
It makes sense though, because if someone's moral foundation allows them to justify theft and slavery, then it stands to reason they probably won't be bothered with lying and distorting the truth either.
"Political tolerance, which is a limited civil virtue (I'm not trying to denigrate its importance but define its scope)merely says that you have no right to initiate force or advocate the initiation of force against others. (Of course, it does not preclude retaliatory force or such advocacy against a person who has initiated force.)"
I agree it's wrong to initiate non-retaliatory force. But if someone steals a large percentage of your income every single month BY FORCE (because let's face it, it is only by force, and most definitely by force that taxes are collected and enforced), I would be inclined to argue that armed resistance is "retaliatory".
I would also argue that one should first try exhaust all other civil avenues of relief. I think we're extremely close to the point though where all other avenues of relief have been exhausted.
At some point, if all peaceful attempts to restore individual liberty and private property rights fail, then war is the only recourse remaining to restore these rights.
With the Fed going into printing-press overdrive on the currency, debt close to 100% of GDP and about to completely blow up in our faces, with a dollar collapse coming soon (if not already started), zero attempts to rein in public spending and government unions or increase public accountability and efficiency, restrictions on liberties still increasing, and all 'civil' recourses having proven totally useless --- I'd honestly argue we've arrived at that point. The only hope now is the Tea Partiers have enough influence on the Republicans and the political will to do something about the problems. If not, the US economy will implode within 10 years.
Obviously, we're now speaking "in general" and not about Loughner anymore, who was obviously just a deranged lunatic.
Now Obama has made a good speech (as usual, a speech and not actually doing anything as such). It even nearly made Russel cry you know.That is the heart of the "lefty" problem here, they didn't feel good before but some suit with good oratory makes a nice speech and everything will be OK. We *feel* it now, now *we* can heal. Quite how Obama making a speech will help I dunno (his speech at the BP oil spill didn't stop the oil, but I guess it made some people *feel* better). Presumably he has psychic powers over deranged nutters who can be sedated by his words. Probably true, since Bush had the same power in the opposite direction, just remember how deranged he could make otherwise legally sane people.
Thank you for the post PC.
The conservative sector of the US has had a gutsful of the progressive sector. They now expect lies and calumny on a daily basis. The truth is not in the Left, anywhere. Admirably the right is standing up for their freedoms. They will not stand and be abused by people, parties and organisations that assert the Constitution means other than what it says. America is a state of mind that revolves around freedom, leftism is a state of mind that revolves around servitude. It's oil and water and they don't mix.
Bring it on.
George
Actually the killer was more of a Right winger...the actual facts regarding his stated views make that pretty clear....but it was his insanity,not his politics that caused him to do what he did...
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2011/01/who-is-jared-lougher-insane-right-wing.html
Post a Comment