Thursday, December 4, 2014

Truth: Enemy of the Progressive Agenda

I once had a friend whose life was a series of problems.  She had lost her job, had lost her home, she was eighty pounds or more overweight and her marriage was falling apart.  We had developed a friendship when our young sons became close buddies and over the years, as she struggled through one crisis after another, she would ask for my advice, then promptly ignore whatever I told her because all of the solutions to her problems involved facing certain truths that she didn’t want to face.  She was overweight because she ate too much of the wrong things.  She had money issues because she was reckless with her spending.  She had marriage problems because she was mean to her husband (and the extra eighty pounds didn’t help).  What she really wanted was someone to tell her how she could still do all these things and be slender, financially sound and happily married.  Needless to say I failed in that capacity, but I learned a valuable lesson of my own:

No problem in this world can be solved if people refuse to see or acknowledge the truth. 

That may seem self-evident and many readers may be thinking, “Gee, thanks for that great revelation, CW;” but the reality of life in America as we know it today certainly suggests that this simple and basic bit of wisdom is absent in epidemic proportions.  Politicians and other talking heads, particularly those trying to separate us from our power and our wealth, bombard us with fast talk and lofty, lengthy speeches in the hopes that Americans will forget or ignore the simple truths that render their extravagant promises impossible.  The people who lie to distract you from reality aren’t capable of solving your problems, nor do they have any real intention of doing so.  Liars don’t usually lie to be helpful.  Now you may be okay with that if you’re one of those people who feign anger over perceived problems like poverty, racial and gender inequalities, decline in education, or any of the other myriad difficult issues we now face.  If so I would just ask that you spare the rest of us the trouble of entertaining your insincere concerns.  Go stick your head back in the sand.  This piece isn’t meant for you.  The rest of you may read on.

When Larry Summers had the audacity to make the politically incorrect (but factually true) assertion that women weren’t as interested in math and science fields as men and that this was the primary reason for the shortage of women in these fields, he was viciously attacked by those on the Left as if he had committed some horrible sin.  It didn’t matter to them that it was true.  He wasn’t allowed to say it.  Facing this truth and similar truths about the different skills, interests and aptitudes found among different genders might go a long way to broadening our understanding of perceived inequalities, but that, of course, is why we mustn’t be allowed to go there.  The perception of discrimination serves the interests of those on the Left and women who want preferential treatment, and therefore we must hear no truth, see no truth and speak no truth when it comes to gender differences.

Leftists in this country and around the world spend a lot of time denouncing us as a violent country and in particular crying over the victims of “gun violence.”  Gun homicides are high here compared to some other nations, that’s true, but you would think someone sincerely interested in understanding and solving the problem might take the time to examine the patterns of these homicides to understand why we’re different from countries that are held up as being more civilized than we are.  Unfortunately that kind of exercise leads to something that the Left fears more than anything:  the truth.  Gun homicides among whites in American are only slightly higher than those in countries that the Left points to as evidence of our comparative barbarity.  It’s only when you factor in the gun homicides among blacks, which is some seven times higher, that the truth becomes a bit clearer.  The reality points to a problem in the culture of inner-city blacks, not a problem with us as a nation or a problem with guns in general.  But shhhhh.  Don’t go there.  You’re a racist if you do.  And so the problem remains unsolved, and it will stay that way because the ‘progressives’ don’t really want to solve it.  I guess that’s too bad for blacks, since they’re largely the victims of black gun violence.  Oh well.

And what about the problem of poverty?  If you believe those on the Left, poverty is an artificially induced condition resulting from corporate exploitation, racism and a system designed to favor the wealthy.  Each of those may hold a grain of truth, but all are dwarfed in comparison to the primary reasons for poverty, all of which are either self-induced or inherent in the individual.  The notion that people might be responsible for their own poverty because of the choices they make in life with respect to education, employment (or lack thereof), marriage, pregnancy, spending, drugs or anything else is unsettling to liberals who hate anything that smacks of personal responsibility.  Leftists who value power above anything else know that it’s hard to elicit loyalty in the form of votes when you hold people accountable for their actions.  It’s much more rewarding to pretend the problems are someone else’s fault.  And the notion that some people are simply incapable of achieving more than poverty or that poverty is a temporary condition depending on one’s stage of life?  Well those topics are taboo as well.  So instead the Left devotes its efforts to “solving” poverty by transferring wealth aka legalized stealing, which of course simply moves the players around on the board and does nothing whatsoever to tackle the real causes of poverty.  That’s too bad for some who might actually be helped to escape the cycle of poverty by being forced to face the truth, but oh well.

Ferguson is only the latest example where self-imposed blindness to the truth stands in the way of what the complainers profess to want.  Supposedly we are concerned because unarmed black youths are being routinely and disproportionately cut down in the streets by trigger-happy cops.  To whatever extent this is true, it too has no hope of being resolved due to the lies being told by the Left to themselves and to the world.  Any group that demonstrates a higher propensity for crime and violence is naturally going to attract greater attention and suspicion from police.  Males in general, black or white, face greater scrutiny from police than women do because men categorically commit the vast majority of crimes, particularly violent crimes.  Their presence, particularly in charged situations, is going to naturally raise the adrenaline levels of most cops, and that’s going to lead to more violent confrontations whether deserved or undeserved.  The solution to that is to change the perception, which requires that you begin creating a new type of history, which requires a different culture in the black community.  Stop tolerating bad behavior.  Stop propping people up with welfare and rewarding them for having children out of wedlock.  Let their energies be focused on working and surviving instead of trouble making.  That’s the only genuine and lasting solution to the problem of black males being disproportionately sent to prison or to the morgue.  Anyone who is suggesting otherwise has no sincere interest in seeing that dynamic change, and it’s time to take a closer look at their motives.

People need to understand that political correctness isn’t about politeness.  It’s an intentional strategy to keep the truth from being spoken out loud so that it doesn’t have to be faced, and so that people who engage in bad or destructive behaviors can continue to do so without anyone annoying them about it.  Any time anyone goes out of their way to avoid the truth or to keep it from being discussed, that person has another agenda to push.  That’s the Left’s game in a nut shell.  Unfortunately too many on the Right go along with the game, bowing to some misguided notion that one-sided rules of political correctness must be respected.  Instead of insisting that the truth be faced, they tread in aimless circles around it, and the results speak for themselves.  The country is a mess and it’s going to stay that way until someone insists on the truth.


~CW




13 comments:

  1. Something I'm noticing--post-GWB & BHO--more and more about both 'Conservatives' (loyal GOP voters) and 'Liberals' (loyal Dem voters) is their growing propensity to ONLY discuss things w/themselves in their own little echo-chambers. Their disconnect from reality is becoming harder to maintain, the failure of their ideologies/policies is becoming harder to ignore, and the FACT that libertarians have been completely vindicated about our MANY warnings over MANY decades is undeniable at this point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I put this blog out here as an invitation to discuss the subjects I care about with anyone, conservative or otherwise. Anyone who would like to have a truth-based debate and wants to challenge anything I’ve said is welcome to do so. In my experience, though, it is the so-called “libertarians” who don’t want to “discuss” anything. They want to vent their anger – period. Well I’m not interested in your anger. Anger is not an argument, and besides that I have plenty of my own anger.

      I know it serves your purposes to define conservatives as “loyal GOP voters” but the TRUTH is that just because someone votes with the GOP or labels himself a republican does not make them a conservative any more than Juan Williams is a libertarian just because that’s what he claims.

      When you’re are ready to check your anger, your Lew Rockwell talking points and your dishonesty at the door I am at your service to debate. Otherwise, don’t let the door hit ya…..

      Delete
  2. Anger?

    As far as JW being a 'libertarian'…something else I'm noticing more and more are non-libertarians pretending to be libertarians…probably because the Con/Lib labels have been so thoroughly discredited...

    ReplyDelete
  3. >>"...something else I'm noticing more and more are non-libertarians pretending to be libertarians..."

    Welcome to my world.

    "Anger?"

    If you're not angry then why do you keep coming back here? Clearly the goal isn't to win me over, since you never make any attempt to persuade me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Its puzzling to me that Cons can't figure out why voting the straight GOP ticket decade after decade causes non-Cons to link Cons to the GOP…it'd be like a woman marrying a man and then claiming she's not his wife afterwards when people call her Mrs. So-And-So…or, better yet, a battered wife claiming she can't leave her abusing husband because she's scared of ending up w/someone even worse...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>”Its puzzling to me that Cons can't figure out why voting the straight GOP ticket decade after decade causes non-Cons to link Cons to the GOP.”

      I’m sorry you find it so puzzling. Please let me help you out.

      Elections are a numbers game. The party with the most votes wins. Democrats have culled together a solid voting block of women, minorities, union thugs, ignorant college kids and guilty white liberals that make up about 45% of the voting population. Anyone who wants to win has to do better than that. Conservatives – REAL conservatives – make up just a small fraction of the remaining voters. They can either throw their lot in with all the rest of the republicans or let democrats have the country.

      I used to argue at length with an “anarcho-libertarian” who supported Ron Paul. He said that anyone who still believed in the Constitution was a fool, because the Constitution had failed. Yet Ron Paul, according to his own website, is a constitutionalist. The anarcho-libertarian railed against conservatives, just like you do. Yet Ron Paul is a self-described conservative. When I brought these contradictions to his attention, he acknowledged that he and Ron Paul “part company” in some ways but since Paul represented the closest thing to his own views that’s who he supported. In other words, he was doing precisely what he derided conservatives for doing.

      But having said all that, I really don’t believe in your claims of ignorance when it comes to linking all conservatives to the GOP. The libertarians I’ve met, including you, have found it very self-serving to paint all conservatives with the same brush. If you can lump us all in with the RINOs you look stronger by comparison. That’s why you do it, not because you’re “puzzled.”


      >>“…it'd be like a woman marrying a man and then claiming she's not his wife afterwards when people call her Mrs. So-And-So…or, better yet, a battered wife claiming she can't leave her abusing husband because she's scared of ending up w/someone even worse...”

      Why are libertarians always so bad at analogies?

      The best analogy would be if a woman was forced to choose between two men for a husband, and she hated one and disliked the other. Or….she could pick anyone she wanted, but the forces that be won’t allow her to have him. That’s the scenario that best fits the dilemma faced by conservatives.

      Delete
    2. I get what you're saying about #'s, but why maintain the "I'm a 'REAL' conservative" (whatever that even means, LOL, the closest I can locate to a core principle of their ideology is rampant jingoism/nationalism, a desire for a Paternalistic-Police State, and a puzzling obsession w/doing Israel's bidding) or "I'm a conservative not a Republican" charade? Who CARES if you're a 'real' conservative when your only function is electing Big-Govt. GOPers who are every bit as bad (in somewhat different ways) than the Dems? Does the term "useful idiot" mean anything to you?

      Problem w/your analogy is that no one forces you to vote…a better analogy is a woman being given the choice to marry a man who will beat her on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; one who will beat her on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays; or to not marry EITHER. Cons choose one of the two former and pretend the latter option doesn't exist.


      For decades Cons have essentially been saying "It's not the right time to support true limited-govt. candidates, but when the time comes we'll do it!"…but the "right time" never seems to arrive, does it? Instead, when a TRUE limited-govt. candidate appeared (Ron Paul), Cons were the ones leading the charge AGAINST him!!! At this point Cons are simply deluding themselves that they can save the Titanic by bailing out water w/a coffee cup, LOL! And then they get mad at the people pointing out THEIR delusions!

      I am amused when I visit Con sites (just saw a blog like this at a site called "The View From The Island") where all you do is whine and moan about how bad the candidates YOU elected are! Talk about a disconnect from reality...

      Delete
    3. Oh, and btw, the constitution is as irrelevant and meaningless as the bible. Any and every yahoo interprets it to fit his/her personal beliefs (just like every yahoo loves democracy only when he/she is on the "winning team"…I like to call it "Myocracy") and I've found that an overwhelming majority of self-described 'constitutionalists' haven't put much effort into studying late-18th century American history or Enlightenment Era.

      Most folks (esp. Cons) have a mythological and idealized view of "The Heroic and Selfless Founders" (as if they weren't the politicians of the day) and "The Holy and Perfect Constitution of 1789" (as if it had unanimous support among a grateful populace, lmao, and as if history and the pursuit of truth ended at the 1787 ConCon--these late-18th century men had it ALL figured out and there is no room for philosophical improvement or progression from that time!). Despite having put almost ZERO effort into studying this history, despite never having looked at the 'founders' and constitution in a critical way (AKA: rational thinking), 'constitutionalists' (every single one of them!) considers him/her-self an expert in this area. Funny stuff!

      By all means, keep the blog entries coming…you're a wonderful representation of the conservative (oh, sorry, I mean 'REAL Conservative'!) mindset…as a libertarian I seek out viewpoints of the many varied enemies (despite different labels, always a combination of irrationality combined w/a propensity towards supporting whatever level of authoritarianism is required to impose their personal views on others) of freedom, prosperity, peace and human-progress…it helps me gauge popular sentiment and present state of Americans' regression back into pre-Enlightenment superstitions, ignorance, and happy serfdom.

      Delete
    4. That’s nice that you have settled upon a definition of conservative (nationalistic, paternalistic, police state, Israel-obsessed) that just so happens to once again be self-serving to your argument. I guess I could say that libertarians are hedonistic pacifists who think there should be no laws just to bolster my own argument but self-serving dishonesty is not my style. I’m willing to let you define libertarianism and I’m perfectly willing to debate based on what’s true and what isn’t, but thus far no libertarian will rise to the challenge, including you. Apparently they must always give themselves the advantage of misrepresenting conservatism, and this speaks volumes about their confidence in their own argument; i.e. it’s weak at best.

      As far as I can tell the big claim to fame of the Lew Rockwell libertarians is that they know how to criticize. That’s it. Everything “amuses” them because they are so intellectually superior and they demonstrate this by saying “LOL” after every other sentence. Of course, they have no answers themselves. There are no libertarians running anything anywhere. They have no proof that their idealistic vision for the country would work if only everyone would just get out of their way. How convenient is it to have no proof about the failings of your own philosophy because for all practical purposes it’s never been tried? A cynical person might say that the lack of real-life examples of successful libertarianism is the proof of its hopelessness. Guess what? I am a cynical person.

      >>” Problem w/your analogy is that no one forces you to vote…”

      Well then perhaps I should have added that if the woman doesn’t choose the choice will be made for her, because the analogy is only apt if there will be a husband just as in reality there will be government. Your assertion about there being a third option demonstrates – oh, I don’t know – childish dreaming? The existence of some form of government is inevitable, as evidenced by the fact that this has been the case throughout history in every corner of the world. And if you’re suggesting that the option of marrying neither one is analogous to electing a libertarian, there again you fail. If you can’t elect a libertarian (and you can’t), then there is no third option no matter what fantasies you might like to entertain to the contrary.

      Delete
  5. >>” Oh, and btw, the constitution is as irrelevant and meaningless as the bible…”

    If that’s how you feel then I am scratching my head as to why you would promote a constitutionalist like Ron Paul. How unprincipled of you.

    >>” I've found that an overwhelming majority of self-described 'constitutionalists' haven't put much effort into studying late-18th century American history or Enlightenment Era.”

    Now I am the one who is amused. You sound just like the leftists who tell us we don’t know what’s best for ourselves because we haven’t been educated like they have been. I’m sorry but you’re not smarter than the founders of this country, and it shouldn’t require a lot of background material to understand what they did right. If that’s what you’ve gotten from Lew Rockwell (which I notice you never deny, BTW) then you have not been well-served. It doesn’t require any mythical idolization of the founders to appreciate what they did, as so many brilliant Americans have (including Ron Paul). They have done what you have not. They tried (because that’s all ANYONE can do) to put in place a framework for preventing our capitulation to tyranny. I’d like to see your plan. Unlike you they allowed themselves to be handicapped by the reality of human nature. You simply pretend it doesn’t exist. You’re like an engineer claiming he’s designed the perfect car except while all of the other engineers are working with the challenge of incorporating a fuel system you just leave that out. And since it’s all just theoretical you can’t be proven wrong, yet you make a career of criticizing the cars that have actually been built by the engineers working within the realm of reality.

    >>” …keep the blog entries coming…”

    Don’t worry, I will, just as I’m sure you will keep regurgitating the Lew Rockwell talking points. Maybe one day you’ll do some thinking of your own.

    ReplyDelete
  6. LOL…so much projection…

    As to your "perfect car" analogy, silly Con, its YOU who are essentially saying the "Heroic and Selfless Founders" created the 'perfect car' in 1787-89. No need for improvement or advancement, eh?

    LOL…"human nature"…how well did the "Holy and Perfect Constitution of 1789" do in restraining the "human nature" of the politicians (doing the bidding of their constituents/benefactors who also have "human natures") it ensconced in high office? Even granting you that the "Heroic and Selfless Founders" were the greatest geniuses who ever walked or will walk on Earth, let me ask: If THEY couldn't construct a means to keep govt. limited who can?

    How is the "smallest govt. possible" working out?

    And this silly accusation of me not doing my own thinking coming from someone who is stuck in the 18th century is hilarious…and as if you don't think exactly like 1/2 of the rest of the electorate...

    Keep on the blogging…you write well (then again, so does Obama) and are fairly intelligent (same w/Obama) but are handicapped by a terrible ideology (once again like Obama). I won't always comment, seeing as how you're incapable of rational discussion, but I'll read for reasons already mentioned, to keep an eye on the enemy's mindset.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Slavery existed for centuries and centuries and no one really thought to question its existence until only relatively recently--it was "normal". Its unimaginable for us today to comprehend how people could be so blindly immune to this evil, but they were. The system we live in today (corporate govt.-feudalism) has been around long enough that most people today (who are still collectively extremely irrational/insane) don't question it either--its "normal". For crying out loud, most of humanity still believes in sky-gods! Humanity still has a long way to go to catch up to libertarians, sadly, but when they finally get there I guarantee they'll look back on the humanity of today EXACTLY the way we wonder why humanity in the past allowed slavery to go on for so LONG.

    “Since late Neolithic times, men in their political capacity have lived almost exclusively by myths.”—Dr. James J. Martin

    Government Explained

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUS1m5MSt9k

    LARKEN ROSE: The Most Dangerous Superstition

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLwtZdLedFc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Heroic and selfless.” “Greatest geniuses who ever walked or will walk on Earth…”

      First you mischaracterize conservatives, now this bullshit. Those are your adjectives, not mine, but by now I’m well used to the games you guys play. You’re all the same. I guess when your argument is weak you have to try and set up as many advantages for yourself as you can, kind of like Commodus stabbing the restrained Maximus before their battle.

      It doesn’t matter when the Constitution was created, silly anarchist, because human nature doesn’t really change. There are mechanisms built into the C so that each generation can amend it as they see fit, which is exactly what they’ve done for better or worse.

      >>”If THEY couldn't construct a means to keep govt. limited who can?”

      So are you suggesting that there be no government? I anticipate that you’ll dance around and not answer that question because we both know it’s the nail in the coffin for your side of this debate. Government is inevitable. There is absolutely no place on this planet where you can escape it, not even if you had a time machine. So it’s not a question of government or no government. It’s a question of how you go about preventing total tyranny – period. You criticize the founders for failing in that mission. Fair enough. Now you can tell me precisely what you would do differently to avoid the same mistakes.

      That’s all I’m interested in hearing from you, genius. If your next comment doesn’t answer that question and ONLY that question then don’t waste your time because I won’t publish it. My patience for undeservedly arrogant jerks has a limit.

      P.S.
      Don’t send me any more links to your training materials. Unlike you I don’t need the crutch of having someone else tell me how to think.

      Delete