Maybe It's Just Personality?...

More and more I've become convinced that most "Left-wing," or "Progressive" Americans are driven primarily by personality, NOT ideology.

They despised G. W. Bush's "smug, frat boy" style. His lazy, word-inventing political "strategery."

They reviled Ronald Reagan's easy confidence and his purported "style over substance." BUT despite the fact that Reagan was a JFK-styled tax cutting, anti-Communist, the Left STILL despised him because he "wasn't on the Blue team."

They reviled Nixon's deep-seated paranoia, despite the fact that Richard M. Nixon's the guy who started the EPA, birthed racial preferences/quotas and opened up China to trade.

Conservatives seem primarily ideologically driven. They support reduced tax rates for ALL, knowing that high income earners benefit the most. They support unfettered free speech, easy access to guns, absent a felony record, or a documented mental/emotional problem. They support restrictions on immigration. Many support a return to the pre-1965 immigration rules. They support less regulation for business and industry. They support mandated workfare, NOT welfare. They support equal OPPORTUNITY for ALL, special PRIVILEGE/preferences for NONE. They support Fair Trade deals NOT "Free Trade" that drive U.S. jobs offshore. They support harsher sentences for violent offenders and they vehemently oppose In-Sourcing cheap labor via ILLEGAL immigration and H-1B Visas, as well as Out-Sourcing our jobs offshore.

Perhaps that's why instead of staking out what they believe in, we mostly hear American Leftists vaguely taking issue with the way Conservatives put things. For using, "code words," like "law and order meaning racism to Leftists, "free speech" meaning no sanctions against "hate speech" (OK, lucky guess on their parts on that one) and "pro-business" meaning "anti-environment."

Virtually EVERY "Progressive" American I've ever met has defined "socialism" within the Capitalist confines of private property rights and the market-based economy. That is they all believe that Socialism recognizes private property rights and isn't tethered to the Command (government-run) economy.

Of course, THAT'S NOT "socialism." That "melding of the best aspects of Capitalism, with the best aspects of Socialism" is called Corporatism, which is what we have now.

Perhaps that’s why it seems to be all about personality with "Progressives," they don't, so much, disagree with Conservative Corporatists, they merely want to tinker around the margins.

I've always sought out the views of Leftists, etc. and STILL find myself looking for an ideological "Liberal"/"Progressive" who's NOT primarily driven by personality...or "style over substance."

Why America's Deep Political Divisions Are a Blessing...

Many people complain about the political Balkanization of America.

I DON'T!

I see it as a natural, even a good thing.

We have a media that has long sold out to Internationalist/One World interests. Those are interests that are antithetical to American interests...OUR National/Nationalist interests.

Today, our media is increasingly seen for what it is and a huge segment of the American people ignore it. As a result Left and Right get their information from completely different sources, with neither side accepting the legitimacy of the other's sources. As a result most people in America today, live within an information bubble, Left, or Right...and there's virtually no intersection, no commonality.

There are some who say, "Our media cannot directly appeal to, or make arguments in favor of internationalism/One Worldism, they can only deride patriotism and attack patriotic citizens (Nationalists) as "White, or Black Nationalists," implying a non-existent bigotry, so as to tacitly support, or aid Internationalism."

"Duke," they say, BUT "Duck," I says.

The truth, in my view, is there's no one within this anti-American media who CAN actually make a cogent argument FOR internationalism.

Seriously, does ANYONE believe the likes of Chris Matthews, Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow, Wolfie Blitzer, or Megyn Kelly COULD make such an argument?

If you do, I can say with certainty that you are most sorely mistaken. As it's commonly observed, "They CAN'T do the math," and it takes quite a bit of math to do that.

The 1974 paper that conclusively proved socialism's Command (government-run) Economy cannot work was 97 pages comprised almost entirely of differential equations. I believe it is currently stored in Dartmouth University's library.

I can't say whether any in our media have seen that paper, or not, although I will say that I don't believe any of them could possibly make heads or tails of it.

Differential equations are...hard, much harder than offering their baseless opinions.

So, now the globalist Corporate heads are in a panic, lashing out at their failed political-media class.

And that crew HAS indeed failed...epically! BUT, much of that failure is a failure on the part of the so-called "Global elite," as they're the ones who put this American political-media class together in the first place.

As a result, a dangerous, uncontrolled outsider (anti-Internationalist) has taken the U.S. Presidency.

They planned on an insider (Ms. Clinton) to help the Merkel’s and others tamp down Europe's exploding Nationalism.

Now, they must move to Plan B...or is it Plan T by now? They are pretty far down the road.

Perhaps the true Internationalists should look around their own table. Not all of their global Conglomerate cohorts seem to share their One World enthusiasm. The Muslim migration to Europe was no accident, no mistake...it was a "poison pill" designed by insiders to undermine the push for a more homogeneous, allegedly more harmonious globe. It seems as though some of their "friends," may not be actual "friends."

For better, or worse...and I say much BETTER, Nationalism seems resurgent around the world. Moreover, should Trump, LePen, Wilders and the others in this first wave fail, that movement only seems poised to grow...louder, and perhaps bloodier, if need be, but this time there are those poised to bring such a war to the doors of the wealthy, Internationalists.

I wonder how well they can fight.

The NEW Ideological Dynamic

One of the things I’ve been happiest about lately, yes, thankful for too, is the inability of the Left to make actual affirmative arguments for their positions.

Believe me, it’s a VERY good thing for Conservatives and Libertarians, who’ve ALWAYS had to make arguments for our positions because we’ve been swimming against the grain for so long.

Some of it is the natural laziness borne of inertia that comes with adhering to the status quo and America’s political-media class has been very Left-of-Center for a very, VERY long time.

So, for the most part, they can’t explain why they believe the Command (government-run) Economy delivers more equitable outcomes and can’t argue against the view that governments have proven to never have been able to run businesses effectively, any more than they’re able to argue against the importance of the nation state, our natural affinity, even love for our own unique heritages, cultures and traditions.

They’re also (for the most part) unable to argue against the existence of the nation-state, nor why our old traditions, customs, cultures and heritages should be put behind us to make way for a new humanity.

THIS is a very real and imminent crisis on the Left and Conservatives and Libertarians SHOULD NOT let this crisis go to waste.

How?

By confronting the Left at every turn.

Many, including myself, have noticed that most Left-of-Center people ban, block or otherwise refuse to engage those they disagree with. Possibly because they mistakenly believe that theirs is the prevailing political view, despite America having more than twice as many people who identify as Conservative (low of 41% to a high of 47%) as Liberal (a low of 19% to a high of 24%) and feel that “ignoring that view will marginalize it.”

While that’s certainly not true for the Right, which continues to grow, we should always remember it’s NOT true for the Left either. You must always confront those who are ideologically opposed.

That’s a lesson Donald Trump learned early and was foolishly excoriated on BOTH sides over it. Donald Trump NEVER lets an opportunity to confront a foe (sometimes personally), which is mostly counterproductive, but at least he rarely fails to confront no matter how big or small the for might be.

While the ultimate goal has to be a hostile takeover of America’s media. The Trump’s are certainly one of the families that have the means to do that. So are the Koch Brothers, but after their man (Jeb Bush) was dispatched with, they showed their true globalist/Internationalist colors by putting their money behind Hillary Clinton. It will take a collection of free (anti-globalist) thinkers to effectively wrest control of America’s media, in the meantime, the New Media seems very Independent, which is why BOTH Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton blamed “social media” and “fake news,” by which they meant those outlets they disagreed with (Breitbart, Red State, Ace of Spades, Drudge, and many others).

So, individually, what can you do? Continue to confront, NOT with venom, but with facts, stay on topic, every time a person disengages that’s a WIN.

You BOTH know that, even if the party that disengages doesn’t initially reflect on that. When we disengage we effectively surrender. So, NEVER, EVER disengage so long as the other person disagrees.

Also try NOT to respond in anger, or frustration, as difficult as that is. When losing an argument on the facts, many resort to distractions, to trying to provoke the opponent into anger allowing them a graceful exit, claiming “the moral high ground.”

Stay with them and keep making the same points, using the same facts that back them up. They’ll either have to come up with their own (“fake”) facts, which are easily debunked, OR, more likely disengage. In either case, it’s a WIN.

This has proven to work on BIG targets and small. For eons, The New York Daily News allowed comments with their online articles. Like a number of other outlets they’ve stopped that because the bulk of the comments went “against (their) message.” In other venues (CNN, the Washington Post, etc.), Conservative commenters have overwhelmed certain articles to the extent that the outlet simply closed the comments.

Those are WINS. Those outlets were effectively driven to disengage.

A lot of this comes down to temperament. If you are the kind of person who “doesn’t suffer fools gladly,” or has a “quick fuse” and frustrates easily, it’s probably not the best strategy for you, but it’s an effective and increasingly necessary strategy, as it effectively cows those who disagree. That minor triumph is an inroad and lots of them together form a cascading ideological storm.

For those who love and honor our individual and disparate heritages and cultures, values our traditions and customs and cherish the individual countries of our birth...no fight is more vital.

Yet Another Major Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

              

America's Original RIGHT


 











  Today's LEFT


Conservatives seem to know that business and government have been increasingly intertwined over the last century and they almost universally recognize that as a very bad thing. The “political economy” (Corporatism or “Crony Capitalism”) is NOT the free and open market of Capitalism at all. It is nearly as far from economic LIBERTY/freedom as the Command (government-run) Economy is.

Moreover, both the corporately owned media and government subsidized education complex are, and have long been both overwhelmingly and unabashedly pro-BIG-government and anti-individualism and personal LIBERTY.

The Tea Party movement is a grassroots response to the Keynesian (pro-BIG-government Moderate Republicans) seeking to steer that Party’s agenda Center-Left. It began shortly after the 2008 election, when the Keynesian Moderates were able to steer one of their own (John McCain) into the role of the GOP’s standard bearer.

Only with the White House’s very recent support of Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) have some Liberals begun howling at the Democratic establishment for seeking to steer that Party’s agenda Center-Left instead of far-left.

The more prescient and engaged Conservative Americans saw the abuse within their own primary Party before the less engaged, and frankly less intelligent Leftists/“Liberals” saw the same within theirs. For the Obama administration had been steadily working AGAINST the interests and agenda of the far-Left fringe (less than 5% of the nation) that calls themselves “his base.”

These Leftists STILL don’t understand the deep connection between business and government and STILL don’t understand why elected Liberal Dems have to “play ball” with big business interests ahead of any “far-Left agenda.”

I know that none of this is all that surprising, given that the Left has always been a little slow on the uptake.

The Flaws of Socialism and Why I Believe the Obama Campaign is so Dangerous...

Let me admit this at the outset, I am a proud and very determined ideological bigot.

I don’t merely disagree with socialism/Liberalism/progressivism because it is wrong-headed, viciously misanthropic and doomed to failure (it is), but because I was literally born to revile it as “an ideology for losers,” as much as I was born to embrace LIBERTY - self-ownership/responsibility.

I’ve reviled Kuwait which actually has made a very rudimentary form of socialism work, in fact, Kuwait has done that far more effectively than any Western European or Asian nation ever has! Kuwait has been able to do that distributing the proceeds from its oil profits to its people.

Today, Venezuela is trying to mimic Kuwait’s model.

Kuwait shared the oil wealth with its people as far back as the 1960s. When America’s poverty line began at around $4000/year, Kuwaiti citizens had a guaranteed income of $11,000/year.

I revile Kuwait, because I firmly believe that socialism’s success ANYWHERE is a threat to economic freedom/LIBERTY everywhere.

Now, I LOVE the writings of the GREAT Henry George (Progress and Poverty, among other works), a devoutly Christian, 19th Century American social reformer, reviled by both socialists and capitalist alike. George based his views on the principle that ALL the resources of a nation belonged principally and primarily to the people, just as surely as does the air they breathe.

Henry George’s philosophy greatly influenced the great Russian novelist, Leo Tolstoy, who after penning Anna Karenina and War and Peace, devoted the rest of his literary life to writing religious and social tomes, such as The Kingdom of God is Within You, The Gospels in Brief (one of the most AWESOME books I’ve ever read and I’m not at all religious) and My Confession. Tolstoy’s later works echoed and amplified Henry George’s views and greatly influenced Mahatma Gandhi , who in turn greatly influenced Martin Luther King.

I like Henry George’s philosophy very much, it transcends socialism and looks to humanize Capitalism in a very logical, thoughtful way. While I don’t see many of George’s ideas as very practical, they are, unlike the deeply misanthropic and hateful ideas of Marx, rooted in an innate decency.

I LOVE Tolstoy’s later works and admire his vast talents.

What I don’t at all admire or even respect is the dimwitted philosophy called Marxism based on “FROM each according to his abilities and TO each according to his needs.”

It is one of the most feeble-minded philosophies ever constructed and one of the most unworkable.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy was far more coherent, far more radical and far more frightening in its scope and vision. Nietzsche advocated “natural selection” (“social Darwinism”) for the human species so that it might evolve toward a better, what he called Uberman or super-man. In that regard he derided charity as “the curse of Christ” because it undermined this natural selection/social Darwinism and encouraged and enabled the poor, the uncompetitive and the profligate to not only survive but to thrive and pass on their defective genes to future generations.

It is indeed tragic that a man as bereft of understanding and nuance as Adolph Hitler is credited with “trying to bring Nietzsche’s vision to life.”

Again, Hitler was as much a Nietzschean as he was a Christian, which is to say he was neither.

I say all that, not merely to rationalize or justify my ideological bigotry and my red-hot hatred for hardcore Leftists, but to give some background to that peculiar affection of mine.

That said, the people running Barack Obama’s campaign (no not Ayers, or Wright or any of those), the David Axelrod’s (the people actually engaged in the day-to-day running of that campaign), have an extreme Leftist agenda. They are supported by the extremely anti-capitalistic George Soros and other American anti-capitalists.

The MSM is largely corporately owned and corporately run.

Ironically enough, even though the command economy, that Karl Marx favored, DOESN’T and CANNOT work, the highly regulated economy CAN and DOES.

The highly regulated (Corporatist economy) can work because, although it stifles new start-ups, new ideas and new products, in the name of “economic stability” – protecting established enterprises, industries and jobs, because it is STILL market-based and privately run.

Armand Hammer, a major U.S. industrialist (founder of Occidental Petroleum and Armand Hammer Cleaning Products) managed to get a contract with the former USSR and held a virtual monopoly status in that command economy.

Armand Hammer formed the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and advocated for the command economy here in the U.S.

There’s NOTHING either altruistic or even uncommon about wealthy people like Armand Hammer embracing socialism and the command economy. It greatly benefits THEM, by, in effect, “freezing the free-for-all of capitalism and free enterprise in place, while they are on top.

It is for much the same reasons that most major corporations embrace the highly regulated or “Corporatist” economy of Japan, Western Europe and America, today. It benefits themselves AND it gives workers far more stability than they might otherwise have in a constantly changing, economically revolutionary free market system.
My objection to the Obama agenda is NOT that it’s an “Afro-centric one,” (it’s really NOT that), but it IS an extreme Leftist one!

Socialism is NOT a revolutionary ideology, it is one that seeks to enslave the poor and working people to the political class instead to the “clever class,” those who run industries and businesses. THAT is why the truly rich, the Kennedy’s, the Soros’, the Hammer’s all support either outright socialism OR a heavily regulated form of corporatism.

I support Liberty and the vicious free-for-all in which clever, scheming economic bullies, harness the power of ideological book-bright elitists and use them to make fortunes for themselves, while creating jobs for the rest of society.

Capitalism IS Liberty, Capitalism is FREEDOM.

To support socialism is to support political slavery.