ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Madness and the Unreality Principle

John C. Wright presents a brilliant explication of the Left and their relentless denial of observable reality with his Unified Field Theory of Madness:
The Leftist has only two choices here: accept reality, in which case he is no longer a Leftist, or deny reality, in which case his loyalty to the ideals of Leftism becomes rarefied and refined, and he become of their Cathari, the Pure Ones, an arhat of enlightenment.

I spoke above of the Unreality Principle. Here is where it comes into play. The Unreality Principle is the moral imperative to ignore and deny reality at all costs, and remain loyal and faithful to the make-believe illusion-choked funhouse-mirror Wonderland of Liberal Bullshit. You must bathe in the bullshit, eat the bullshit, drink the bullshit, and stuff the bullshit up your nose as far as far can be, because from now own the offal will be feast and wine to you, and will be your baptism and your oxygen. It will feed and sustain you.

However, the Unreality Principle demands a cost. First, there is something like a daily maintenance cost: you must attend closely to whatever the social cues are telling you, and believe them and not your lying eyes....

The Leftists are people who are stupider than average, less moral and upright and decent than average, who at once combine the worst features of a self-deceived fool and a self-deceiving conniving con-man. The only thing that saves them from the constant pain of the dentist drill of their conscience, the constant clamor of their wretched self-esteem telling them that they do not deserve to live, the only thing, indeed, keeping them alive, is their false and inflated sense of sanctimony. Each one is a Judas, who has betrayed all he hold dear. The only reason why he does not hang himself from the nearest redbud tree is because he adopts the numbing hypocrisy of the Pharisee.

There is no greater high than to fly on the drug of smug moral superiority. You may look down your nose at all fashion of men greater than you in every other way, but if they are evil and you are righteous, the savory odor of your righteousness in your own nostrils is finer than myrrh. It is more than wine which mortals drink; it is nectar of the gods.
In case you were wondering where our modern-day Chesterton was, well, John C. Wright is it. It is a little frustrating to be publishing his excellent book of essays, the forthcoming TRANSHUMAN AND SUBHUMAN, because not a week goes by that he doesn't produce another new essay that fairly screams for inclusion in it.

Needless to say, there will be a sequel if Mr. Wright is so inclined.

And if you haven't read his GOLDEN AGE trilogy yet, you simply must. It is more than excellent, it is inspiring. Consider this quote from THE GOLDEN TRANSCENDANCE, which I am currently reading:

"[E]very intelligent entity, human or machine, requires justification to undertake the strenuous effort of continued existence. For entities whose acts conform to the dictates of morality, this process is automatic, and their lives are joyous. Entities whose acts do not conform to moral law must adopt some degree of mental dishonesty to erect barriers to their own understanding, creating rationalization to elude self-condemnation and misery. The strategy of rationalization adopted by a dishonest mind falls into predictable patterns."

Note that this isn't exposition or preaching, but a concept that is seamlessly integrated into the plot in order to explain the potential of mere human minds to correctly anticipate the thinking of superhuman, supersmart machine intelligences.

Labels:

222 Comments:

1 – 200 of 222 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Edjamacator March 27, 2014 9:34 AM  

You must bathe in the bullshit, eat the bullshit, drink the bullshit, and stuff the bullshit up your nose as far as far can be, because from now own the offal will be feast and wine to you, and will be your baptism and your oxygen. It will feed and sustain you.

Coupled with their pure hatred of everything that threatens to punch a hole through the BS and illuminate them to the truth. For me, it's hard to fathom being so angry and offended all the time and not being able to step out of ones self to see it at some point, but I'm going to adapt this mental image of the BS as smeared over their eyes to assist with that.

Blogger JartStar March 27, 2014 9:36 AM  

I suspect the comments defending the left in this post, however wordy, will simply be another way to say there is no objective morality or it is not knowable.

Blogger Matamoros March 27, 2014 9:41 AM  

The only thing that saves them from the constant pain of the dentist drill of their conscience, the constant clamor of their wretched self-esteem telling them that they do not deserve to live, the only thing, indeed, keeping them alive, is their false and inflated sense of sanctimony.

The book "Yankee Babylon" makes much the same point. It details how the Puritan morphed into the Yankee, and thence into the liberal.

Anonymous Brother Thomas March 27, 2014 9:44 AM  

The greatest fear of the Left is that someone somewhere is happy.

Anonymous boomer March 27, 2014 9:57 AM  

I like to through the BS. Its fun to watch some of the elk and all of the trolls here bath in it.

Anonymous Anonymous March 27, 2014 10:04 AM  

I wish I'd written this, because I've been saying the goal of the left is to destroy everything good, but I haven't been able to explain it well. He mentions Evan Sayet, who was the first person I heard explain why leftists are always wrong, but Wright takes it to a new level here.

Anonymous Dr. Doom March 27, 2014 10:09 AM  

I believe he and you are making a serious error in that you are assuming that these creatures possess a conscience that needs to be eased. However, since I believe them to be more than slightly Psychopathic, I seriously doubt that they have moral quandries or need for justification for their heinous acts of intellectual terrorism. Like all fanatics, these Leftists have little or no identity outside of their hatred and loathing the other is the only thing they have to do, seeing they lack any appreciable quality whatsoever. In short, their entire reason for being is the pursuit of power and injustice. Their crusade for egalitarianism is their entire life and reason for living, without which they quickly digress to self-loathing and overwhelming feelings of inadequacy that one would expect from the underman or sub-human.

Anonymous Anonymous March 27, 2014 10:13 AM  

I suspect the comments defending the left in this post, however wordy, will simply be another way to say there is no objective morality or it is not knowable.

Yes, but it's worse than that. Someone who simply rejects objective truth would wind up on the right side of things once in a while by accident. The real evil of the leftist is that he looks around and finds something that appears to be good, happy, successful -- marriage, religion, a profitable business, America -- and says to himself, "They must have cheated to get there. Fairness requires that they be dragged back down in the mud with the rest of us."

Anonymous boomer March 27, 2014 10:20 AM  

What is really insane is that we elect them to control us

Anonymous jack March 27, 2014 10:24 AM  

I tested the Castalia link much earlier this am and its fine now.

Anonymous Susan March 27, 2014 10:25 AM  

Brother Thomas,

It isn't that the person is happy, it is that they are happy living/doing something that the left doesn't agree with. It is ok to be happy as long as you are being so in the approved lefty way.

Anonymous Porky March 27, 2014 10:27 AM  

Fun read. But Paul said it a bit more succinctly a couple of thousand years ago.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Blogger Salt March 27, 2014 10:30 AM  

Quite the article. Every device, and the reason thereof, I've run across in dealing with leftists is there. I'm not so sure about the solution.

Anonymous jack March 27, 2014 10:34 AM  

Castilla link is back up...

Anonymous boomer March 27, 2014 10:36 AM  

But But we have to compromise with them to move forward

Anonymous jack March 27, 2014 10:37 AM  

That was weird. I made the note, up the page, about the Castilla link but it did not appear. This after leaving the site and returning. Then, recommented about it and suddenly both comments are back. There be gremlins here.

Excellent assay, as usual. I hope there will be a sequel of Wright essays. You can, of course, follow his site, but it's nice to have them all spiffed up and ready for a night on the town.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 10:38 AM  

Assuming John follows this, and I would be most surprised if he does not, go read this: http://www.tomkratman.com/Ranthhour.html

Anonymous John Scalzi March 27, 2014 10:49 AM  

The Leftists are people who are stupider than average, less moral and upright and decent than average, who at once combine the worst features of a self-deceived fool and a self-deceiving conniving con-man.
They like me! They really, really like me!

Anonymous Anonymous March 27, 2014 10:52 AM  

> However, since I believe them to be more than slightly Psychopathic,

Actually, I think the exact opposite. And I speak as someone off the scale on pretty much every psychopathic personality marker there is.

The defining one is lack of empathy. If you lack any appreciable vestige of empathy, as do I, you do not become a leftie. Because you just, at a fundamental level, do not give a flying fuck what anybody thinks about anything, except insofar as practical considerations of providing you with money/power/entertainment.

Being a leftie is the exact opposite of that; it's a worldview in which the *only* important thing is what others think of you. Tearing down anyone better than you is a necessary consequence of that worldview. And that makes it a consequence of an *excess* of empathy, so much empathy that it completely overrides any notion of self-reliance or honour. (Defining 'honour' here as "an internal moral code").

So I don't think there's any psychopaths that are actual lefties. It's just plain not compatible with deriving your self-worth from herd identity. On the other hand, *acting* as a leftie since manipulating those idiots is the easiest way to money and power, well that's just good business, isn't it?

Anonymous Jimmy March 27, 2014 11:11 AM  

Simply, Alinsky cannot work against Leftists. They are shameless.

Anonymous Chairman Mao March 27, 2014 11:24 AM  

So I don't think there's any psychopaths that are actual lefties.

Thank you.

Anonymous Don March 27, 2014 11:26 AM  

thetroll is warming up the bagpipes. Are we going to get 'Scotland the Brave' or 'Amazing Grace'?

Anonymous Don March 27, 2014 11:34 AM  

Tom - Quit being reasonable and helpful with your writing. It's simply not the intellectual way.

Anonymous Pol Pot March 27, 2014 11:37 AM  

So I don't think there's any psychopaths that are actual lefties.

Couldn't agree more.

Anonymous Uncle Joe March 27, 2014 11:40 AM  

So I don't think there's any psychopaths that are actual lefties.

Hear, hear!

Anonymous Brother Thomas March 27, 2014 11:42 AM  

@Susan March 27, 2014 10:25 AM

Happiness is living in harmony with reality. The Left is at war with reality.


Anonymous Boogeyman March 27, 2014 11:46 AM  

Logic is like swimming, it's a talent almost everyone is capable of but you generally need to be taught by someone who already knows how to do it, and no matter how strong you are eventually you get tired and have to get out of the pool. That's too much effort for a lot of people. Far easier to float along using nothing but emotion and instinct.

Let the nerds figure out worry about the hard stuff like math and engineering that make modern life possible. The truth is, despite cell phones and jet planes, the vast majority of people are no less superstitious or more prone to critical self examination than someone living in a cave circa 8,000 B.C.

Anonymous Charlie Manson March 27, 2014 11:47 AM  

So I don't think there's any psychopaths that are actual lefties.

Yeah, man, Haight Ashbury was all about love and peace and understanding - not psychopathing.

Blogger Markku March 27, 2014 11:56 AM  

Logic is like swimming, it's a talent almost everyone is capable of but you generally need to be taught by someone who already knows how to do it, and no matter how strong you are eventually you get tired and have to get out of the pool. That's too much effort for a lot of people. Far easier to float along using nothing but emotion and instinct.

Yes; but on the other hand, I agree with Greg Koukl when he likes to say "clear thinking is caught, not taught."

I don't believe anyone can really internalize using logic by reading about it. Including but not limited to logical fallacies. Rather, it is learned by witnessing someone else use it in practice.

I think this also places an extra responsibility for us (towards God, not towards the illogical) to behave logically, in order to be good examples to others.

Anonymous subjectivist March 27, 2014 12:10 PM  

Bush Lied, People Died

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey March 27, 2014 12:15 PM  

Brilliant. I was not aware of this gentleman's writing before. Thanks for the intro, Vox.

Anonymous Adolph March 27, 2014 12:18 PM  

So I don't think there's any psychopaths that are actual lefties.

I prefer the term "Bohemian".

Anonymous VD March 27, 2014 12:21 PM  

Being a leftie is the exact opposite of that; it's a worldview in which the *only* important thing is what others think of you. Tearing down anyone better than you is a necessary consequence of that worldview. And that makes it a consequence of an *excess* of empathy, so much empathy that it completely overrides any notion of self-reliance or honour.

I concur. I know a psychopath or two. They can act like lefties, but they do not think like lefties. Or like most people on the right, for that matter. They are chameleons who say whatever happens to serve their purpose at the moment but have no real beliefs at the core.

As Wright shows, lefties do have real beliefs at the core. Erroneous, but real. The difference is that they believe their lies, fervently. The psychopath does not. Ironically enough, it's much easier to convince a psychopath of reality than a leftie.

Blogger Hermit March 27, 2014 12:28 PM  

There are meaningful warnings that history gives a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, the decadence of art, or a lack of great statesmen. There are open and evident warnings, too.

But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a
vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive
offensive, you can feel their pressure, and yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?

[...]

In our Eastern countries, socialism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero.
But Western intellectuals still look at it with interest and with empathy.

-Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, The Harvard commencement address, 1978

Anonymous Vladimir Lenin March 27, 2014 12:35 PM  

I know a psychopath or two. They can act like lefties, but they do not think like lefties.

I know! They are so weird!

Anonymous Bill Ayers March 27, 2014 12:41 PM  

I know a psychopath or two. They can act like lefties, but they do not think like lefties.

So true. They are not at all like us non-psychopaths.

Blogger IM2L844 March 27, 2014 12:43 PM  

I suspect the comments defending the left in this post, however wordy, will simply be another way to say there is no objective morality or it is not knowable.

Yep. It all boils down to the fact that there are only two ways to live life. 1) As if God exists, or 2) as if He doesn't exist. Pretending it doesn't matter because there is no way to know for sure is tantamount to betting on option #2, so the soft third option (agnosticism) is illusory and will be completely inexcusable if it turns out that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does in fact exist (Romans 1:20). Place your bets and make your beds. The wager isn't optional. It's logically inescapable and compulsory, whether anyone likes it or not.

The odds are not even. God is not a liberal. Pleasure and pain are not justifiable primary motivators. The many paths nonsense is more likely than not to eventually turn around and bite subscribers in the ass.

I should stop before this grows into a screed.

Blogger IM2L844 March 27, 2014 12:52 PM  

There is little excuse for this kind of oversight other than not wanting to be challenged.

I attribute it to "water is wet" reasoning. Specific examples are not generally considered necessary prerequisites where common knowledge is sufficiently prevalent.

Blogger El Borak March 27, 2014 12:59 PM  

this very basic and unfounded set of ideas can be dismissed as elementary and useless....

Well, that was utterly predictable. Perhaps liberals could make it easier for the rest of us by just giving the appropriate number from the Internet Arguing Checklist

A simple #2, perhaps annotated with "Disqualify that opinion!" the first time in a thread it's used, would have sufficed.

Blogger Booch Paradise March 27, 2014 1:02 PM  

@John Isn't Right
The linked essay is actually part 2. Part 1 is the example that part 2 sets out to explain.

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 1:28 PM  

"I attribute it to "water is wet" reasoning. Specific examples are not generally considered necessary prerequisites where common knowledge is sufficiently prevalent. "

I suspect you are right and that this is the explanation he'd choose to lay on top of his exclusion of facts. It is the "go-to" explanation for an inability to muster examples of claims.

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 1:36 PM  

"I should stop before this grows into a screed."

Too late. You got there when you suggested that your binary view of how to view existence was valuable.

Anonymous VD March 27, 2014 1:45 PM  

Go away, Tad. For crying out loud, you are so obvious that we can identify your pompous posturing on your very first comments no matter what you call yourself.

Stop your trolling and cyberstalking. If you want to bitch about here, go do it at Pox Vay's. You're neither welcome nor permitted to comment here.

Anonymous Jack Amok March 27, 2014 1:45 PM  

I attribute it to "water is wet" reasoning. Specific examples are not generally considered necessary prerequisites where common knowledge is sufficiently prevalent.

You confuse our troll (who has already used at least two different non-du-trolls in this thread, perhaps more by the time I hit the publish button). As Mr. Wright's essay observed, Lefties don't believe things like "water is wet" so pretty much every theory they have or espouse is devoid of common sense support, and thus they are totally unfamiliar with such reasoning.

From a lefty's POV, any theory worth believing is worth fabricating data to support. If you can't be bothered to gin up a false rape allegation or a bogus hate crime or two at, how serious can you really be?

Anonymous Dr. Doom March 27, 2014 1:48 PM  

The error people make most about psychopaths is that since they don't have empathy, they have no emotions at all. This is not true. Their emotions are stunted and only overstimulation such as murder, rape or torture register on their limited emotional range. That is why they are dangerous, because normal healthy behavior such as love or friendship is completely meaningless to them.
Also, they do care what people think about them, because if others saw they were cruel unfeeling brutes, then they could not use and manipulate people anymore. They don't care in a real or needy way, but they have to keep the illusion that they are normal and caring in order to get their victims to agree to be victimised or abused.
The followers of the Left are mostly effusive wastrels with few friends or qualities. Their need to belong to something drives them into the arms of the Leftists, and begins a long one-sided abusive relationship between the False Prophets and the Peons. Its actually a False Form of Messianism, in which a False Messiah preaches hate and demands sacrifices and tribute not to God but to the False Messiah. Satanism is merely an inversion of Christianity, with Hate for Love, Death for Life, and Conformity for Faith.

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 1:49 PM  

"From a lefty's POV, any theory worth believing is worth fabricating data to support. If you can't be bothered to gin up a false rape allegation or a bogus hate crime or two at, how serious can you really be?"

Actually, when one offers up a theory like Mr. Wright's, any data at all would be appreciated. But he offered none to support his theories. It probably goes to his position concerning faith.

Anonymous Philalethes March 27, 2014 1:53 PM  


There is no greater high than to fly on the drug of smug moral superiority. You may look down your nose at all fashion of men greater than you in every other way, but if they are evil and you are righteous, the savory odor of your righteousness in your own nostrils is finer than myrrh. It is more than wine which mortals drink; it is nectar of the gods.

When I read the post above and got to this paragraph, my first thought was that it sounded like he was describing himself. I went to the original and began to read it, but found the self-righteousness so rank and, well, ridiculous that I gave up after a few paragraphs. I am not any kind of "Leftist", and in fact I am largely in agreement with him about the Left—at least as regards the facts of the situation; but his attitude makes clear that he actually shares far more with those he excoriates than what little differentiates him from them.

As someone remarked, when you have a boot on your face, it makes little difference whether it is a Left or a Right boot. And who was it said something about obsessing over the mote in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the beam in your own?

I've never read any of this author's fiction, having quit reading SF when he was about three-four years old. I have read several of his blog columns, and enjoyed them, but after this I may not be reading much more. He's obviously intelligent and articulate, but also pretty much totally lacking in self-awareness. And thoroughly jacked up on "the drug of smug moral superiority". Pot, meet kettle. The term "pompous ass" comes to mind. As a rule, I don't make a practice of employing such terms—at least not in public—but this writer demands it.

Oddly, from his picture at Wikipedia, I'd have guessed him to be a New York Hasid. Same appearance, similar "Chosen People" attitude. (50+ years ago I shared a Manhattan apartment with my late, dear friend Avram Davidson, and learned a good deal about Judaism. Avram, of course, later left the fold and joined instead a very different though still monotheistic Asian religion.) But "Wright" seems about as Anglo a surname as any. Perhaps it's like my ex-wife's maiden name Gilbert—camouflaged from Goldberg. Dunno what the original would be in that case.

Anonymous Sensei March 27, 2014 2:02 PM  

After reading an earlier entry of Wright's, I was impressed enough to see what his novels were like. After seeing someone post on a Count to a Trillion review that it wasn't nearly as good as The Golden Age, I was curious and went back and started to read that trilogy...

Couldn't put the stupid things down, stayed up a whole night to finish one of them.
That was some amazing work, I can't believe this guy isn't famous. (as in famous, famous)

With the constant multi-layered interweaving of philosophy, technology, historical references, and the ramifications of those things on the people and culture of his world taken in brilliant directions... and then even those ramifications have their own subtext sometimes... Only a man of no little genius could have written something like that.

(Maybe that's why he's not very famous.. your average pulp reader probably doesn't want to think hard enough or is literally not intelligent enough to really enjoy the books as they were meant to be enjoyed.)

Blogger Booch Paradise March 27, 2014 2:03 PM  

@Philanethes
Funny, he's already responded to your pompous position in a previous post.

"The way to call a good thing evil is to attribute to yourself mind-reading gypsy powers, which enable you to penetrate all masks of hypocrisy and deception, and to attribute to the good thing you wish to demean a secret, often subconscious, motive that ranges from the ignoble to the utterly despicable. The way to call an evil thing good is to declare moral perception to be beyond human power. No one can know what is truly good or evil. Therefore the mindreading gypsy is allowed to call you “evil” when you make an moral observation that is blatantly, nay, painfully obvious to everyone."

Anonymous VD March 27, 2014 2:12 PM  

When I read the post above and got to this paragraph, my first thought was that it sounded like he was describing himself. I went to the original and began to read it, but found the self-righteousness so rank and, well, ridiculous that I gave up after a few paragraphs. I am not any kind of "Leftist", and in fact I am largely in agreement with him about the Left—at least as regards the facts of the situation; but his attitude makes clear that he actually shares far more with those he excoriates than what little differentiates him from them.

You're completely wrong. I suggest you read the entire essay again. You have completely failed to understand the point. Attitude is totally irrelevant; the central question is the acceptance or the denial of reality.

Anonymous VD March 27, 2014 2:14 PM  

Actually, when one offers up a theory like Mr. Wright's, any data at all would be appreciated. But he offered none to support his theories. It probably goes to his position concerning faith.

Don't be ridiculous. None is necessary. It is a logical argument based on observation. All you're doing is trying to find a way to disqualify it.

Disqualify... disqualify... disqualify.... You guys have literally nothing else in your arsenal and can't make a positive case for anything to save your lives.

Blogger IM2L844 March 27, 2014 2:17 PM  

You got there when you suggested that your binary view of how to view existence was valuable.

Binary isn't a bad word. Some things actually are strictly binary with no shades of gray in between. It is not simply my view. It is a necessarily inescapable logical conclusion. Potential value can be estimated as potential ROI. Minimal cost with a potentially infinite reward is a no brainer bet.

Blogger LP2021 March 27, 2014 2:18 PM  

In the past, present an future we have (stateside) moral awfulness, spiritual apostasy and political anarchy. Given humans are fallen, the continued political problems make public policy agendas epic failures.

Blogger Markku March 27, 2014 2:19 PM  

The intent is not to persuade the leftist, it is to help us organize our thoughts about why leftists are the way we have all observed them to be. For the intended audience, examples would be wholly unnecessary. We have all seen their character over and over again. We immediately recognize what Wright is talking about based on our own experience.

But what he then does is to help us make SENSE of what we already know.

Blogger Markku March 27, 2014 2:23 PM  

I mean, for example when I read this:

It cannot escape the attention of any observer that the Left regard themselves as intellectuals. They use sesquipedalian polysyllabic words to express themselves, they assume an air of intellectual superiority, they deem themselves to have insights and compassion denied to the hoi polloi and the petit Bourgeoisie.

It may have escaped your attention, however, that these people are really, really, really stupid; I mean brain-breakingly stupid, too stupid to understand the law of cause and effect, too stupid to understand the causes of war, too stupid to understand the difference between men and women, too stupid to understand the law of supply and demand, too stupid to know the difference between the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, too stupid to know the basic rules of logic first established by Aristotle and worked out with painstaking thoroughness by medieval monks.


...I go, YES! FINALLY someone says it exactly like I think it, without mincing his words or trying to be "fair" in a futile attempt to make those people hate you less for siding with the truth. No, that will just make you seem weak. And it won't be helpful to anybody.

Blogger LP2021 March 27, 2014 2:24 PM  

Facing reality is the most honorable, strongest aspect to meet our eyes with, re-reading is unsettling but beneficial. People are either going to Perish in refusal or Survive having the (complete) truth.

I criticize those I avoid for not living in reality but I often wonder if its me not living in reality.

Anonymous bw March 27, 2014 2:27 PM  

Collectivism is a religious psychopathy against all natural, observable, historical, and current evidence - with the "experts" and coercive, murdering, lying, thieving Public/Private Partnership as the judge, jury, and executioner.

Anonymous the bandit March 27, 2014 2:28 PM  

I once linked a Thomas Sowell article that noted the trend of "flash mob" violence and mainly focused on how it represented a one-sided race war that might horrifically incite a two-sided race war. I had a leftist friend whose only response was to demand proof that violent flash mobs had actually occurred, with the associated claim that none of these events were occurring, and after hundreds of examples were provided, he claimed these events, IF occurring, were isolated and not a phenomenon which could be written about without first proving they were a cohesive trend.

It was then that I figured out that anyone continually demanding proof and examples of a general phenomenon used as the base for a subsequent discussion was simply striking out against reason and reality in the only remaining way available to maintain his emotional frame in unreality. In other words, if Oligarch really wanted an example for Mr. Wright's description of typical leftist behavior, he wouldn't have to look any further than himself. As predicted by Mr. Wright's Unreality Principle, he starts by questioning whether we can know or judge the traits of typical leftist behavior...

Anonymous Fret Not March 27, 2014 2:31 PM  

but I often wonder if its me not living in reality.

As we all do at times - which is necessary, honest, and healthy - but then we get back to following the evidence again.
Those of whom we are speaking never do so. Truth is not their agenda.

Anonymous Scotsman March 27, 2014 2:33 PM  

he starts by questioning whether we can know or judge the traits of typical leftist behavior...

Because No True Leftist

Blogger Markku March 27, 2014 2:34 PM  

It was then that I figured out that anyone continually demanding proof and examples of a general phenomenon used as the base for a subsequent discussion was simply striking out against reason and reality in the only remaining way available to maintain his emotional frame in unreality. In other words, if Oligarch really wanted an example for Mr. Wright's description of typical leftist behavior, he wouldn't have to look any further than himself. As predicted by Mr. Wright's Unreality Principle, he starts by questioning whether we can know or judge the traits of typical leftist behavior...

Exactly. And these principles for what to spend your energy for, and what is a completely useless waste of time and energy , one can learn from banging his head against the wall many enough times.

OR, by reading something like this, that will help you make sense of what you already knew, and go "how did I not see that!?"

Anonymous Don March 27, 2014 2:37 PM  

Modern Chesterton indeed. Interestingly he wrote much of what is now considered 'Christian' while he was still officially an atheist. I believe Wright has done that as well.

Anonymous Salt March 27, 2014 2:41 PM  

All you're doing is trying to find a way to disqualify it.

He wants to entertain arguments, a necessity to avoiding the understanding.

Anonymous Richard Camellion March 27, 2014 2:51 PM  

Given that the obamanation received 24% of his votes from blacks(I.Q 85) and about 12% from mestizos(I.Q. 93), there's no question that there's a significant intelligence gap favoring the Right in the U.S.
Given the immaturity of the liberal vote there's an even larger gap in wisdom.

Of course, the White Liberal Establishment doesn't truly consider blacks and mestizos to be part of their intelligentsia. Blacks, in particular, serve primarily as an evergrowing political vegetable crop to be watered with government dependency, sunned with endless fawning, fertilized with anti-White racial scapegoating, and reaped at election time in order to enrich the parasite liberal economy of government, slackerdemia, law etc.

The reality is that the idiot liberal religion of Cultural Marxism is a giant scam to steal as much wealth and freedom from nonliberal White America as possible.

Anonymous Dr. Doom March 27, 2014 2:59 PM  

The only problem with this article is it doesn't go far enough. Its true that Leftists avoid reality as much as possible. However, the dangerous Leftist is not the follower that avoids reality, but the leaders that live in a delusional fantasy world. Narcissism, megalomania and schizophrenia are all common features of Leftists.
Take for example the POS POTUS Mr. Lazyassvacation who believes that he's an expert on everything, and smarter than everybody. This is what happens when you patronize an idiot and tell him he's smart, because the idiot doesn't really know what smart is in reality.
Leftists are delusional, mostly from serious thought disturbances, but also from one or more serious long-term substance abuse problems.
Leftists are also immoral, and do not see any problem with theft or criminal behavior if it is beneficial to them in the short term. They hate the police but love the government, and do not see any contradiction in that viewpoint. Any time someone believes two diametrically opposed beliefs at the same time without noticing the contradiction, this indicates a serious thought disturbance similar to schizophrenia.
The Leftist does not care about reality, because they believe in fairies and rainbow-farting unicorns because that's what they like, and anyone who contradicts them is a hateful hater full of hate. They hate haters you see. They're overflowing with hate for hateful people. They believe everything they believe should be tolerated and will not tolerate anyone that does not tolerate their childish delusions.
Talking to these people is pointless. They lie like a rug, and have the perceptiveness of Mr. Magoo. Violence is what they use to get what they want, and is probably the only part of reality that they can relate to easily.

Blogger IM2L844 March 27, 2014 3:00 PM  

In the past, present an future we have (stateside) moral awfulness, spiritual apostasy and political anarchy.

The past, the present and the future walked into a bar...it was tense.

I was compelled to throw that in there.

Anonymous the bandit March 27, 2014 3:01 PM  

by reading something like this, that will help you make sense of what you already knew, and go "how did I not see that!?"

It's so satisfying when it all clicks into place. There was nothing in Wright's essay I had not seen or thought before, but he did an admirable job of achieving what he set out to do: create a cohesive and simple explanation of the whole.

Anonymous VD March 27, 2014 3:04 PM  

It was then that I figured out that anyone continually demanding proof and examples of a general phenomenon used as the base for a subsequent discussion was simply striking out against reason and reality in the only remaining way available to maintain his emotional frame in unreality.

Which is why it is fruitless to argue with them. That's why I don't discuss things with trolls any longer. It isn't genuine discourse. There is no good faith on their end. They will say anything they think they can get away with, they will say it shamelessly, and they will never abandon their position even when it is conclusively proven to be false.

Show them no mercy. Cut them no slack. And ignore their desperate appeals to fairness, it is nothing but a rhetorical weapon to them.

Anonymous Sun Xhu March 27, 2014 3:12 PM  

Semi on-topic: ebony-magazine-staffer-jamilah-lemieux-racially-attacks-rnc-raffi-williams-here-comes-a-white-dude-via-twitter

Blogger The Deuce March 27, 2014 3:30 PM  

Tad:

Actually, when one offers up a theory like Mr. Wright's, any data at all would be appreciated.

None is needed, because he's merely explaining and tying together observations of the Leftist cult that those of us not in it have seen so many times. It's for our benefit.

He's not trying to prove to you, to your own satisfaction, that you're a liar and a sanctimonious hypocrite. You already know that, so what would the point be?

Anonymous Sun Xhu March 27, 2014 3:31 PM  

He's not trying to prove to you, to your own satisfaction, that you're a liar and a sanctimonious hypocrite. You already know that, so what would the point be?

Nice...

Blogger John Wright March 27, 2014 3:37 PM  

Dear Philalethes,

Thank you for your letter. I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.

After being an atheist all my adult life, I have recently converted to Roman Catholicism. My ancestors are Pennsylvania Dutch, that is to say, Germanic. However, I am an American and do not carry an 'Ahnenpass' document.

So your powers of reading my mind and soul to discover my inner motives are slightly underwhelming. Your telepathy is less than 20 20.

I suggest that instead of talking about my eyes, a matter of which you know nothing, you talk about what I claim to have observed with them, a matter of common knowledge.

Anonymous Bohm March 27, 2014 3:38 PM  

Mr Wright says 'There is no greater high than to fly on the drug of smug moral superiority'

And he's convinced that all leftists are 'less moral and upright and decent than average' (-than himself, presumably), which looks to me very much like smug moral superiority.

Anonymous Sun Xhu March 27, 2014 3:41 PM  

And he's convinced that all leftists are 'less moral and upright and decent than average'

That's a self-evident fact.

You know facts... they're those things that rabbits, such as yourself, ignore at all costs.

Anonymous automatthew March 27, 2014 3:44 PM  

If I recall correctly, the only novels Wright has written since his conversion are those in the Count to the Eschaton series and Null-A Continuum. He once expressed amusement that he was being criticized for supporting Christianity in works written as an atheist.

His Orphans of Chaos triolgy is as good, if not better, than the Golden Age trilogy. It's his take on Zelazny's Amber, except it actually has a plot and likeable characters. And body-armored, machine-gun wielding Maenads, if you're into that sort of thing.

Blogger The Deuce March 27, 2014 3:48 PM  

"And he's convinced that all leftists are 'less moral and upright and decent than average"

I know, right?! Leftists are just as moral as anyone else by constantly-shifting Leftist definitions of morality!*

*(fornication, adultery, sodomy, deceit, theft, slander, infanticide, political violence, Alinskyite tactics, voter fraud, hatred of religious and white people, etc not immoral under current Leftist definitions of morality)

Anonymous kh123 March 27, 2014 3:48 PM  

"... anyone continually demanding proof and examples of a general phenomenon used as the base for a subsequent discussion was simply striking out against reason and reality in the only remaining way available to maintain his emotional frame in unreality."

"And who is my neighbor" was another way this was framed.

Anonymous Porky March 27, 2014 3:55 PM  

Wow, Vox just pulled an Alvy Singer!

Anonymous Anonymous March 27, 2014 3:56 PM  

It is a logical argument based on observation. All you're doing is trying to find a way to disqualify it.

Argument is meaningless to them, because argument is a method of discovering the truth or convincing someone else of the truth. If there is no such thing as truth, argument is useless. (Their version of "argument" only serves to distract or confuse, which is why it's hard to tell from trolling.)

Anonymous VD March 27, 2014 3:58 PM  

And he's convinced that all leftists are 'less moral and upright and decent than average' (-than himself, presumably), which looks to me very much like smug moral superiority.

Do you think that all leftists are more moral, upright, and decent than average?

Blogger The Deuce March 27, 2014 4:02 PM  

"It was then that I figured out that anyone continually demanding proof and examples of a general phenomenon used as the base for a subsequent discussion was simply striking out against reason and reality in the only remaining way available to maintain his emotional frame in unreality."

And if you do give specific examples, then they'll accuse you of generalizing and "stereotyping" based on specific examples. Their goal here is the same as it always is, as John laid out: to make war on the truth and to prevent people pointing out the obvious by whatever means they have at their disposal. It's the Unreality Principle.

Like I said, it's pointless to try to prove to sanctimonious lying hypocrites that they're sanctimonious lying hypocrites. They already know that, and they're insecure about it. Their goal in demanding "proof" of what everyone can already see is simply to distract you and prevent themselves from being exposed as naked emperors before everyone.

Blogger John Wright March 27, 2014 4:06 PM  

My Dear Mr Bohm,

"And he's convinced that all leftists are 'less moral and upright and decent than average' (-than himself, presumably)"

This is an incorrect assumption. I am the chief of sinners. You have no idea of my criminal background, much less the various sins I commit of which no human has knowledge.

So, once again, the alleged magical powers of telepathic mind-reading have failed.

The difficult with an ad hominem attack is that a type of lying, making it immoral; worse, it is illogical, since it is irrelevant to the topic being discussed. Since I said in my opening paragraph that I did not invent this theory, but I gave credit to Evan Sayet, Alan Bloom, C.S. Lewis, and G.K. Chesterton. So even if I am disqualified as a witness, the crime I witness is still being observed by other witnesses.

I liked your fellow traveler's comment better, the one where he says I must be a Jew.

Anonymous Bohm March 27, 2014 4:07 PM  

Do you think that all leftists are more moral, upright, and decent than average?

Of course not. Believe it or not, most people are decent and upright, lefties and righties. This is my experience anyway. Almost everyone has a sense of what is fair and what isn't. Most people, also, have a sense of humour, which I think is just as important.

Anonymous Bohm March 27, 2014 4:15 PM  

Mr Wright,

Hopefully, you'll forgive my presumption, which I believe was understandable. The problem with your argument is that it consists entirely of preaching to the choir, it seems to me. Admittedly, I only read VD block quote, but if you wish to advance the discourse, and perhaps win converts, the 'All liberals are stupid, stupid, stupid' argument is not the way to go.

Blogger Booch Paradise March 27, 2014 4:17 PM  

And he's convinced that all leftists are 'less moral and upright and decent than average' (-than himself, presumably)

Ho man. No sooner than Philanethes has picked himself up from running into the "I can read minds" wall then Bohm slams into the exact same spot. Even sheep are smarter than that.

Blogger Booch Paradise March 27, 2014 4:23 PM  

Mr Wright,

Hopefully, you'll forgive my presumption, which I believe was understandable. The problem with your argument is that it consists entirely of preaching to the choir, it seems to me. Admittedly, I only read VD block quote, but if you wish to advance the discourse, and perhaps win converts, the 'All liberals are stupid, stupid, stupid' argument is not the way to go.


Ah the ol switcheroo from he's wrong and a hypocrite to it being merely a poor presentation of correct facts. Presumably Mr Wright must make some sort of "well maybe I'm just a little bit wrong" sort of concession before having a message that'll gain converts.

Blogger The Deuce March 27, 2014 4:26 PM  

Bohm:

Admittedly, I only read VD block quote

All that needs to be said. At least you saved us the trouble of surmising as much.

Anonymous Josh March 27, 2014 4:28 PM  

Okay, who else had "skim until offended" on the checklist bingo?

Anonymous bohm March 27, 2014 4:30 PM  

Presumably Mr Wright must make some sort of

I'm making no demands, only observations.

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 4:31 PM  

"Actually, when one offers up a theory like Mr. Wright's, any data at all would be appreciated. But he offered none to support his theories. It probably goes to his position concerning faith.

Don't be ridiculous. None is necessary. It is a logical argument based on observation. All you're doing is trying to find a way to disqualify it. "

I went back, read the essay again and looked for these "observations" you speak of and which he is supposed to have based his conclusion upon. None. Everything is conjecture. Everything is is faith. Everything is a declaration without a stitch of fact.

His theories are based on straw men, red herrings and air.

Blogger dc.sunsets March 27, 2014 4:31 PM  

Great essay until Wright insinuates that Israelis have an innate right to live anywhere in the Mideastern lands they claim, via their socialistic theocracy, and because they are the Goliath in this story (having, as they do, nuclear weapons and all the top-of-the-line military ordnance the U.S. taxpayer can offer them) and non-Jews are the David, all right-thinking people must support Goliath.

Give me a break. Modern archeology fails to find ANYTHING of the Old Testament in the rubble of antiquity. Modern Israelis have as much "right" to the land there as did European settlers spreading across North America 160 years ago. Please, someone explain to me the righteousness of slaughtering the Plains Indians then, and the Palestinians now.

Wright seems to argue a simple creed in this respect: Might makes right.

Blogger Russell March 27, 2014 4:32 PM  

I recently read Schopenhauer's essay "The Art of Controversy" which is like reading a how to argue like a leftist on the Internet. It also pairs nicely with Mises' "Human Action"

I mention both of these works in order to name drop. Oh, and Wright does a fantastic job of expressing much from both with his own take in this essay.

The Great Conversation may be spluttering and gasping, but it's not extinguished yet.

Anonymous Anonymous March 27, 2014 4:33 PM  

"Show them no mercy. Cut them no slack. And ignore their desperate appeals to fairness, it is nothing but a rhetorical weapon to them."

With most leftists, this is beyond a doubt the correct approach. With others, not so much.

The essay below (which Wright added in a note within the body of in his essay in an update) groups lefties into three categories. The Anointed must be humiliated, the Entitled usually humiliated (but not always), but the Benighted can be reached with some effort.

However, the left is making every effort possible to turn as many Benighteds as possible into Entitleds, thereby making them less persuadable. Nevertheless, they do exist, and for them a softer approach works best.

http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/they-are-not-what-they-are/

Martel

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 4:36 PM  

"There is no good faith on their end. They will say anything they think they can get away with, they will say it shamelessly, and they will never abandon their position even when it is conclusively proven to be false."

This is exactly what Mr. Wright is doing. He makes claims that are easily challenged. Yet, he offers not even a detail or example to support his claims. I know why he doesn't and so does everyone else. If he did, we'd discover his claims built on false foundations.

He's huckster, posing as an intellectual. He's not willing to actually do the work. He's lazy.

Blogger The Deuce March 27, 2014 4:37 PM  

"His theories are based on straw men, red herrings and air."

That's nice, Tad. I'm sure your butthurt will cause everyone else to unsee their own observations. Now go in a corner and pout about it.

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 4:39 PM  

"Do you think that all leftists are more moral, upright, and decent than average?"

They are exactly average. No more or no less moral than any other ideological group.

Blogger Russell March 27, 2014 4:40 PM  

"He's huckster" Disqualify, disqualify.

"If the reader doubts that Leftist hate virgins, let him inspect any dozen Hollywood movies taken at random, or visit any dozen college campus dorms at random after hours, or read any two dozen essays by feminists. If the reader doubt that the Left hates children, let him read the account of what goes on in an abortion mill, or read how the British Health Service disposes of the tiny corpses."

Easier to ignore such paragraphs than to grapple with the implications.

Blogger The Deuce March 27, 2014 4:41 PM  

They are exactly average. No more or no less moral than any other ideological group.

Tad knows. He did the measurements and they came out exactly the same. Oh, wait, no he didn't.

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 4:41 PM  

"And if you do give specific examples, then they'll accuse you of generalizing and "stereotyping" based on specific examples."

Proof isn't what is necessary. But one single, solitary fact or example that can be applied as he wants to an entire group would be appreciated. Without that, he's just blowing hot, smoky air.

Anonymous Rollory March 27, 2014 4:41 PM  

He starts off by saying that leftist epistemology is that men can not know truth. Then later he says that leftist epistemology is that truth does not exist.

These two statements are not at all the same thing. He pretends they are, and that is why he is wrong.

Blogger Booch Paradise March 27, 2014 4:44 PM  

I'm making no demands, only observations.
observation: a remark, statement, or comment based on something one has seen, heard, or noticed.

Yet, your attempt at mind reading and then goalpost moving actually has nothing to do with the subject at hand. So no, you are not making observations. You're mearly following the script described earlier of accuse, accuse, accuse, in order to relieve yourself of the terrible burden of having to either describe or defend your own incoherent beliefs, which if honestly examined would fill you with shame.

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 4:44 PM  

Mr. Wright Said:

"So even if I am disqualified as a witness, the crime I witness is still being observed by other witnesses."

And yet, for all these other witness and for all your reading of their witness testimony you are unable to give a single example of the problem you associate with an entire group.

Let me repeat: Charlatan and Coward.

Blogger dc.sunsets March 27, 2014 4:44 PM  

Do people follow Christ or not? What state, Roman or otherwise, did Christ counsel be followed? While there are biblical passages suggesting an individual might properly use weapons to defend himself, I find no suggestion anywhere that men collect into a state and attempt to use that assembled fist to take whatever they determine is theirs.

Modern leftists do, as Mr. Wright notes, deny reality and often deny logic. Many arrive at this condition as the means to obtain their ends: they intend to remake Earth and Man into God's Image in the here and now, not the Hereafter (also known as the Gnostic Heresy, no?)

No man's philosophical or epistemological error threatens me until he chooses as his means the use of force. The state has, for 150 years, been THE vehicle by which leftists attempt to force their "improvements" on Men.

Were this not the case, none of us would be bothering debating this subject.

Blogger The Deuce March 27, 2014 4:45 PM  

Russell

Easier to ignore such paragraphs than to grapple with the implications.

Well, see, if Tad insists loudly enough that those paragraphs don't exist or don't mean what they mean, then they will disappear from reality and nobody will remember having read them.

More seriously, I think Tad doesn't quite grok that he's not in a Leftist forum, so everyone isn't all going to simultaneously agree to collectively deny some piece of reality when one Leftist gives the social cues that it's to be ignored.

Anonymous Josh March 27, 2014 4:47 PM  

Why y'all bothering engaging with tad?

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 4:48 PM  

"These two statements are not at all the same thing. He pretends they are, and that is why he is wrong."

Actually, it's among the many reasons he not only needs to go back to the drawing board but also re-examine his entire world view. It's entirely possible that this kind of duplicity and hate will land him in hell.

Blogger The Deuce March 27, 2014 4:51 PM  

Here's an idea, Tad. Since no evidence was given, according to you, and no observations known to many were used as the premises of his argument, you can just ignore it as so much fluff and stop thinking about it, instead of bitching about it on a hostile forum.

But, of course, you can't do that, because it's gotten under your skin. And it's gotten under your skin because it's described your tribe's psychology so aptly and you know it, and no demands or insistence that there are no "examples" can get it out.

Blogger The Deuce March 27, 2014 4:52 PM  

Why y'all bothering engaging with tad?

To mock him, and egg him on in his impotent rage.

Anonymous Salt March 27, 2014 5:02 PM  

you are unable to give a single example of the problem you associate with an entire group.

Not so much a problem as an observation, which you are, observably, readily supplying.

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 5:15 PM  

"Not so much a problem as an observation, which you are, observably, readily supplying"

No...you are wrong. It's a problem. For example, Wright writes this:

"The Leftists are people who are stupider than average, less moral and upright and decent than average"

There not only is not any evidence for this assertion, there is not even a single fact offered to provide the start of an evidence based argument. We all know why too. He can't. And, if he tried, it would immediately be demonstrated that he's wrong.

There's nothing noble about laying a turd and calling it an argument, yet, Mr. Wright appears to believe that in dropping one, he's come across some wonderful synthesis of ideas. it's akin to a little girl holding up a dollie and telling her friends, "Look, I'm a mommy".

Anonymous VD March 27, 2014 5:17 PM  

Of course not. Believe it or not, most people are decent and upright, lefties and righties.

Your position is totally illogical. A single group of people must be either MORE or LESS decent than average. Unless everyone is exactly the same, which we know is not true. Therefore your position is observably wrong.

They are exactly average. No more or no less moral than any other ideological group.

That's observably false, Tad. Look at you, for example. You are lying and trespassing again. You are falsely identifying yourself again.

Anonymous kh123 March 27, 2014 5:18 PM  

Other than handing off leftovers or forking over pocket change, who bothers to engage in dialectic arguments with a derelict. I mean, you've got Gautama, Diogenes, Caine from Kung Fu, Zatoichi, a handful of unnamed orthodox monks... That's pretty much about it.

Anonymous Salt March 27, 2014 5:20 PM  

What Wright wrote is not a problem of any sort. It's an observation to which many need not argue in the least. It's really bothering you, isn't it. Most enjoyable, your discomfort.

Anonymous Bohm March 27, 2014 5:25 PM  

the terrible burden of having to either describe or defend your own incoherent beliefs

You have no idea what my beliefs are. nuff said.

Anonymous Don March 27, 2014 5:29 PM  

Trolls are like firebugs. They like the attention they get when the sirens go off and people have to save lives to deal with the crap they are doing. The fact that none of the people involved cares about the troll is a feature to them not a bug. They want the response they want to say naughty things to daddy and it makes them feel like big boys to play with matches and start fires.

None of this changes the fact they are still the bedwetting firebug.

Anonymous jack March 27, 2014 5:33 PM  

Go away, Tad. For crying out loud

If I might be so bold; Vox maybe you should write the Troll Book. Maybe with a fantasy slant with demons deciding to attack that life form known as troll on general principals that they, the trolls, are negatively affecting demon kind. There's just got to be some real dark humor there somewhere.

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 5:35 PM  

"Your position is totally illogical. A single group of people must be either MORE or LESS decent than average. Unless everyone is exactly the same, which we know is not true. Therefore your position is observably wrong."

The issue isn't whether a single group is more or less decent than average (and in fact if this were measurable its is entirely possible they would land exactly in the middle), but rather that Mr. Wright, you, nor anyone else has any reliable basis upon which to judge leftists, Rightist, Christians, Atheists, Baseball Players, Fiddle Players or postmen more or less decent or moral.

Anonymous Don March 27, 2014 5:37 PM  

Vox - I know you are libertarian but have you considered requiring registration. It catches Ann from time to time. At least they would have to go to the trouble of getting a new mail address each time.

Anonymous Chad March 27, 2014 5:38 PM  

Proof isn't what is necessary. But one single, solitary fact or example that can be applied as he wants to an entire group would be appreciated. Without that, he's just blowing hot, smoky air.

The entire group thing is the canard. The examples are legion, but the exceptions are your focus. There is no universally applicable characteristic of any group and so your demand can never be met.

However, the burden of proof becomes much more lenient when you wish to prove the opposite. A single example of vice on behalf of a non-left throws suspicion on the entire group. Even when proof does not exist, a statistical disparity will suffice.

If you want an example. Contrast the left's assertion that Bush must have been personally responsible for deplorable acts in Iraqi prisons, but Obama could not have known that the IRS was targeting his political opponents.

Anonymous Luke March 27, 2014 5:39 PM  

"[E]very intelligent entity, human or machine, requires justification to undertake the strenuous effort of continued existence. For entities whose acts conform to the dictates of morality, this process is automatic, and their lives are joyous. Entities whose acts do not conform to moral law must adopt some degree of mental dishonesty to erect barriers to their own understanding, creating rationalization to elude self-condemnation and misery. The strategy of rationalization adopted by a dishonest mind falls into predictable patterns."

This is practically the same in essence as Ayn Rand says on numerous occasions in her books.

“The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values.”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sweep aside those parasites of subsidized classrooms, who live on the profits of the mind of others and proclaim that man needs no morality, no values, no code of behavior. They, who pose as scientists and claim that man is only an animal, do not grant him inclusion in the law of existence they have granted to the lowest of insects. They recognize that every living species has a way of survival demanded by its nature, they do not claim that a fish can live out of water or that a dog can live without its sense of smell—but man, they claim, the most complex of beings, man can survive in any way whatever, man has no identity, no nature, and there’s no practical reason why he cannot live with his means of survival destroyed, with his mind throttled and placed at the disposal of any orders they might care to issue.

Sweep aside those hatred-eaten mystics, who pose as friends of humanity and preach that the highest virtue man can practice is to hold his own life as of no value. Do they tell you that the purpose of morality is to curb man’s instinct of self-preservation? It is for the purpose of self-preservation that man needs a code of morality. The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.'

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"He thought of all the living species that train their young in the art of survival, the cats who teach their kittens to hunt, the birds who spend such strident efforts on teaching their fledglings to fly - yet man, whose tool of survival is the mind, does not merely fail to teach a child to think, but devotes the child's education to the purpose of destroying his brain, of convincing him that thought is futile and evil, before he has started to think ... Men would shudder, he thought, if they saw a mother bird plucking the feathers from the wings of her young, then pushing him out of the nest to struggle for survival - yet that was what they did to their children."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anonymous civilServant March 27, 2014 5:40 PM  

"The Leftists are people who are stupider than average, less moral and upright and decent than average ... they do not deserve to live ...."

"There is no greater high than to fly on the drug of smug moral superiority."

Blogger The Deuce March 27, 2014 5:45 PM  

Gotta love Tad's "Prove to me that I'm less moral than average or I refuse to believe it!" high dudgeon.

Blogger Russell March 27, 2014 5:46 PM  

Misquoted: "The Leftists are people who are stupider than average, less moral and upright and decent than average ... they do not deserve to live ...."

Quote: "The Leftists are people who abandon their innate intelligence and moral stature and who deliberately make themselves to be stupider than average, less moral and upright and decent than average, who at once combine the worst features of a self-deceived fool and a self-deceiving conniving con-man. The only thing that saves them from the constant pain of the dentist drill of their conscience, the constant clamor of their wretched self-esteem telling them that they do not deserve to live, the only thing, indeed, keeping them alive, is their false and inflated sense of sanctimony."

Shocking, isn't it?

Anonymous VD March 27, 2014 5:47 PM  

The issue isn't whether a single group is more or less decent than average (and in fact if this were measurable its is entirely possible they would land exactly in the middle), but rather that Mr. Wright, you, nor anyone else has any reliable basis upon which to judge leftists, Rightist, Christians, Atheists, Baseball Players, Fiddle Players or postmen more or less decent or moral.

Congratulations. You just proved Mr. Wright's point. He literally described your behavior and your argument BEFORE you made it. Tad, you are playing tic-tac-toe while he is playing 3D chess. You are so caught up in, and defined by, your gross immorality that your only recourse is to deny objective morality exists.

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 5:48 PM  

"The entire group thing is the canard. The examples are legion"

No they aren't. If they were offering up at least one example for each claim that is made about leftists should be fairly easy to do. And yet...not a single one. Building an argument on a foundation of air exposes you as a charlatan and weak thinker.

"If you want an example. Contrast the left's assertion that Bush must have been personally responsible for deplorable acts in Iraqi prisons, but Obama could not have known that the IRS was targeting his political opponents."

This is a perfect example of where you (as well as Wright) need to be better thinkers and better arguers. Both Bush and Obama took responsibility for the acts you note, despite the fact that there is no proof that either of them ordered these things. Yet, you find a way to avoid the facts...precisely because they don't fit the narrative you want to deliver.

That's Wright's problem. Wright does not show any evidence at all that he even has anything thoughtful to offer as a defense of the accusation and assertions he throws out.

Blogger The Deuce March 27, 2014 5:52 PM  

You also have to love all the lefties acting as if it's self-evidently hypocritical for Wright to say that Leftists are less moral than average and also prone to smug moral superiority.

Nevermind whether it's true or not. It's apparently automatically "hypocritical" to say it's true, so nobody is "allowed" to say it even if it is.

How appropriate that smugly immoral moral superiorists who want to make everyone deny reality would try to make it off-limits to describe them as smugly immoral moral superiorists.

It's one more example to add to the list of examples Wright gave, but which they want everyone to ignore.

Blogger SirHamster March 27, 2014 5:54 PM  


This is a perfect example of where you (as well as Wright) need to be better thinkers and better arguers. Both Bush and Obama took responsibility for the acts you note, despite the fact that there is no proof that either of them ordered these things. Yet, you find a way to avoid the facts...precisely because they don't fit the narrative you want to deliver.


I must have missed the crucifixion of the partisan IRS agents.

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 5:54 PM  

"You are so caught up in, and defined by, your gross immorality that your only recourse is to deny objective morality exists."

See your problem is you think I"m talking about the essence of morality, right and wrong, who's got it right and who doesn't, the meaning of God's commands, atheism v theism. I'm not.

The fact is this: Neither you nor Mr. Wright are qualified to know the the degree of moral or immoral behavior practiced by "leftists"....UNLESS, you define leftists not as believing X or Y or Z or doing X or Y or Z...but simply as being stupid.

Unless you or Mr. Wright are going to offer up any facts about leftists or any examples of leftists actions, then all you have is what Mr. Wright has: "Leftist are people who are stupid and immoral, therefore, Leftist more immoral and stupid than average.

Talk about living, breathing, writing arch of stupidity!

Blogger The Deuce March 27, 2014 5:56 PM  

Russell:

Shocking, isn't it?

And also deliberate misrepresentation, which is immoral (by actual moral standards, not Leftist non-standards).

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 5:56 PM  

"Nevermind whether it's true or not"

How would we know if it's true or not. Wright hasn't given examples of how leftists act more immoral. We only know that he's defined leftists as more immoral. Convenient, but lazy.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 5:56 PM  

"I find no suggestion anywhere that men collect into a state and attempt to use that assembled fist to take whatever they determine is theirs."

Do you also find it forbidden to collect into a state to use force to defend what is yours?

Blogger The Deuce March 27, 2014 5:59 PM  

Unless you or Mr. Wright are going to offer up any facts about leftists or any examples of leftists actions

What, exactly, is the point of screaming "There are no examples!" to a group of people who read the essay and saw the examples (and are familiar by experience with the other examples he alludes to)?

Ah, yes, self-medication.

Anonymous Salt March 27, 2014 6:01 PM  

What, exactly, is the point of screaming "There are no examples!" to a group of people who read the essay and saw the examples (and are familiar by experience with the other examples he alludes to)?

Only evidence acceptable to the leftist shall be accepted. That is a constant. It is science.

Blogger Russell March 27, 2014 6:02 PM  

The Deuce: "And also deliberate misrepresentation, which is immoral (by actual moral standards, not Leftist non-standards)."

tad: "Wright hasn't given examples of how leftists act more immoral."

But Y U No have examples!?

Blogger The Deuce March 27, 2014 6:02 PM  

We only know that he's defined leftists as more immoral.

It's not really in dispute that Leftists are in favor of abortion, approve of gay sex, want gay marriage, favor the sexual revolution, want taxes for redistributionary purposes, favote socialism, etc. You don't need a "morality thermometer" for that. Wright is merely explaining why this fact is so.

Anonymous Harsh March 27, 2014 6:06 PM  

The trolls here are getting angrier and more persistent. We must be winning.

Anonymous Anonymous March 27, 2014 6:15 PM  

Leftists universally either a) support voting other people's money into their own pockets (thievery by proxy), or b) are those actually taking said money, giving it to political supporters, and therefore increasing their power over the rest of us.

Therefore, they're being immoral.

Granted some may not want either the money or power supported by socialist policies and think they're doing the right thing (the Benighted among them), but they still support the taking from those who've earned and giving to those with political connections.

Which is immoral.

Martel

Anonymous Anonymous March 27, 2014 6:33 PM  

The funny thing is, the leftists are insisting that they have morals, but Mr. Wright never said they didn't. Even in the portion quoted, he said they have a "moral imperative," and it's a strong one. The problem is that, because they start by rejecting the idea of objective truth, their moral sensibility is focused entirely on denying reality and making a fetish of fairness. They can't apply it in any other way, because to do so would be to admit that some choices are objectively better than others.

So they do have morals; they just happen to be immoral by the standards of Christianity, natural law, human experience, and common sense, because they consistently cause them to elevate evil and attack good.

Blogger dc.sunsets March 27, 2014 6:37 PM  

@Tom K.,

Did I use the word, "forbidden?" No.

On the other hand, it is exceedingly rare to find a lasting system where collecting together for defense stays so limited. Lest you missed it, the bankrupting-us Military-Industrial-Complex arose for defense, and then did what comes natural to all such organizations...self-perpetuate and grow like an aggressive cancer.

Switzerland has done a fairly good job of remaining a limited collective. Would that the USA had been so wisely guided after the Revolution.

Anonymous Ostar March 27, 2014 6:42 PM  

Oligarch March 27, 2014 5:56 PM
How would we know if it's true or not. Wright hasn't given examples of how leftists act more immoral. We only know that he's defined leftists as more immoral. Convenient, but lazy.

I LITERALLY reflexively face palmed when I read that statement - the first time I can remember doing so while reading in years. Such willful ignorance or stupidity is jaw-dropping...

Anonymous Bohm March 27, 2014 6:44 PM  

A single group of people must be either MORE or LESS decent than average.

Either some-one is decent, or they are not decent -it's not a matter of averages or 'logic'. Whatever you say, I prefer to believe that most people are decent -rightist or leftist, I don't care.

Anonymous kh123 March 27, 2014 6:53 PM  

...On second thought, I take that back. Maybe there was an extra barrel in that phantom wine cellar of his. Our resident incontinent cynic truly has a place called home now.

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 6:56 PM  

"So they do have morals; they just happen to be immoral by the standards of Christianity"

Ah, I see. As always with the low brow, everything is defined by the degree to which another person's understanding of Christianity is appropriately close to their own understanding of Christianity and from this all else flows.

How original....I'm dumb struck by the originality of this new thought.

And Here I thought Wright was just being entirely dumb and cowardly, when in fact all he's being is entirely unoriginal.

Carry on....

Blogger Markku March 27, 2014 7:03 PM  

Unoriginal in his unstated assumption for the intended audience. Exactly. That's why he can afford to leave them unstated.

Blogger Russell March 27, 2014 7:03 PM  

"And Here I thought Wright was just being entirely dumb and cowardly, when in fact all he's being is entirely unoriginal."

Disqualify, disqualify, disqualify. It's like a mantra. Keeps the feelbads and wrongthinks away.

Anonymous Oligarch March 27, 2014 7:08 PM  

"Unoriginal in his unstated assumption for the intended audience. Exactly. That's why he can afford to leave them unstated."

It's old fish, Markku. Everyone has heard it before and dismissed it other than a few hanger ons. He's just making the same old "look-at-me-I'm-a-Christian-and-know-it-all-so-you-better-submit" argument. But when pressed on exactly what he knows, he shrinks back into the shadow out of shame.

Some day you folks are going to come up with a real answer when it's pointed out your morals are based on air and not nearly as well founded as the clear and empathetic thinkers among you.

As I said, Old Fish.

Carry on now....

Blogger Markku March 27, 2014 7:13 PM  

"look-at-me-I'm-a-Christian-and-know-it-all-so-you-better-submit"

Nope. He's not talking to you. You are not the intended audience. Everything is not about you.

If he WERE trying to persuade you that you are a liar and a degenerate, then yes, he would have to prove it by deduction or induction from assumptions that you both share. But he isn't. He's talking to us; helping us understand leftists so that we can better predict their behavior and generally deal with them.

Repeat: Everything is not about you.

Blogger Hermit March 27, 2014 7:14 PM  

I had a leftist friend whose only response was to demand proof that violent flash mobs had actually occurred, with the associated claim that none of these events were occurring, and after hundreds of examples were provided, he claimed these events, IF occurring, were isolated and not a phenomenon which could be written about without first proving they were a cohesive trend.

I can provide my experience as a former leftist to help you understand how their brain works.
I had a similar argument with a friend concerning savage tribes in Africa where I was defending political correctness and he was saying that those people were stupid and uncivilized.
Now regardless of what the truth was in that argument I must say that I lost the argument completely from an external point of view.
Like your friend I asked him to provide proofs, and then more proofs, and then, under the burden of his superior knowledge of african custom, I said something like "ok even IF maybe they are not very civilized it is because of external factors bla blah" and I tried to minimize his fact based point.

Now, if I was a rational and open minded person like I claimed to be I should have re-evaluated my opinion on the matter and asked myself if I was wrong but I didn't change my opinion.
Why I didn't change my opinion? Why is it impossible to convince leftist of evident truths?

What was my brain thinking at that time?
I did not think "well he have a point, maybe I'm wrong", my brain did a mix of name-calling, arrogance and excuses.
I tought that his argument were racists, that I was much more intelligent than him and thus my political correct opinion was right but it was impossible for me to prove it because he was more informed than me. At this point the typical leftist usually starts to google random biased sources that confirms his political correct opinion.

How to change their mind? Pray and don't argue with them because it's useless.
Some of them, like me, change their mind when they grow up: leftism is a childhood disease.

Anonymous VD March 27, 2014 7:17 PM  

Tad the Troll is in rare form today. His syphilis must be acting up. Not only is he demonstrating his immorality by his continued trolling and trespassing, but he is making both my case and Mr. Wright's case for us.

Building an argument on a foundation of air exposes you as a charlatan and weak thinker.

DISQUALIFY!

Neither you nor Mr. Wright are qualified to know the the degree of moral or immoral behavior practiced by "leftists"....UNLESS, you define leftists not as believing X or Y or Z or doing X or Y or Z...but simply as being stupid.

DISQUALIFY!!

And Here I thought Wright was just being entirely dumb and cowardly, when in fact all he's being is entirely unoriginal.

DISQUALIFY!!!

Some day you folks are going to come up with a real answer when it's pointed out your morals are based on air and not nearly as well founded as the clear and empathetic thinkers among you.

INADVERTENTLY CONCEDE THE POINT. (whoops!)

Now, you're done here, Tad. Do try to show us how moral you can be by not commenting here again after you have been explicitly told you are not welcome here. Go away, Tad. And stop coming back.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 7:21 PM  

"Did I use the word, "forbidden?" No.

On the other hand, it is exceedingly rare to find a lasting system where collecting together for defense stays so limited."

No, you didn't, but the next sentence tends to suggest you think so. So, once again, forbidden or wrong or pick your own term, in the real universe, where people have collected into states to defend or to loot, or both, do you have an objection to people collecting into states to defend, even though the power, like the pistol at my side, may be used for ill, or is it better - again, in that real, non-idealistic, non-intellectual fantasy world - not to collect and die uselessly and hopelessly when faced with force majeure?

Anonymous civilServant March 27, 2014 7:29 PM  

Misquoted: "The Leftists are people who are stupider than average, less moral and upright and decent than average ... they do not deserve to live ...."

Shocking, isn't it?


And also deliberate misrepresentation, which is immoral (by actual moral standards, not Leftist non-standards).


His sentiments are clear. When the time comes we will see which version is the misrepresentation.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 7:29 PM  

Addendum: "Switzerland has done a fairly good job of remaining a limited collective."

This is true, but it doesn't mean we were in a position to replicate Switzerland in any important particular. We were largely mercantile traders; they were not. We were much more vulnerable to invasion from all corners of the compass than they were. We didn't have the mercenary tradition which, incidentally, produced masses of excellent infantry for home defense, at need. We were not militaristic, especially, and they were very much so. As merchants, seagoing merchants, we needed a navy to defend our trade. Switzerland could get by with a couple of patrol boats on the Bodensee. With a navy, we required bases even as we acquired enemies. See above.

Blogger dc.sunsets March 27, 2014 7:30 PM  

So Tom, from what premise do you start?

I choose the premise that power corrupts. If you have a different premise, please share.

Blogger Hermit March 27, 2014 7:34 PM  

Wright is just writing about leftist, he is writing about how they are and the article is for conservatives.
It is an article about leftists written for those who shared his assumptions about them, we read it and say "holy fuck it's just like he says".
We have our own example of those typical leftist behaviours and we don't need an example.

It's not like he want to prove his point: we all agree on that.
If Wright was trying to write an article trying to prove to leftists that they are stupid it would have been different.

Blogger dc.sunsets March 27, 2014 7:38 PM  

North America subject to invasion? Where? When? The War of 1812? (sorry, fell off my chair laughing.) The USA is only vulnerable to the same "invasion" as that conquering Europe...i.e., the one that is invited by those ruling the USA.

Switzerland was a lot LESS subject to invasion? Since when? It's surrounded by nation-states that have a 1000 year history of largely continuous warfare. Your argument sounds like a leftist supporting AFDC.

What makes the Swiss unique is that citizens retained plenty of veto power over their central government. This might have served those in North America just as well, but the cabal that met in Philadelphia had other plans. The world is reaping the bitter fruits of a united, monolithic USA governed by an unlimited government. How many wars the world over have been started and maintained by the Evil Empire of the USA and its "we need to make next quarter's business plan" armaments industry?

I get the impression, Tom, that you are this blog's resident statist-apologist. Am I missing something?

Anonymous civilServant March 27, 2014 7:45 PM  

I get the impression, Tom, that you are this blog's resident statist-apologist. Am I missing something?

I was under the impression that I had been assigned that role.

Anonymous Anonymous March 27, 2014 7:45 PM  

Disqualify, disqualify, disqualify. It's like a mantra.

Yep. It's all they have, and their automatic response to every argument that threatens their Unreality. Since they reject reality and truth, they not only have no interest in what others claim to be true, but they don't really even believe their own claims. How could they, when nothing is true? Their words are intended to tear down any conversation that hopes to reveal truths, just as their policies are designed to tear down everything else that is good.

Once you realize that -- that they will never learn anything from you, and will never offer a useful argument you can learn from -- there's no reason left to engage them except when it might be instructive to others who don't get it yet. The rest (most) of the time, the best response is, "Piss off, troll."

Anonymous VD March 27, 2014 7:51 PM  

I get the impression, Tom, that you are this blog's resident statist-apologist. Am I missing something?

Yes. I recommend you read his Carrera series before assuming he is a statist, much less an apologist for statism. He's simply not an anarchist.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 7:54 PM  

Ahem, you may have missed it. Switzerland is mountainous. This is hard on invaders and easier to defend. It is especially hard to feed an army on such terrain in an age of draft animal power. Moreover, as a huge - tell me you didn't miss this - exporter of highly capable mercenaries, most of whom were available for home defense most of the time, Switzerland was usually considered too hard.

We had an open seaboard and had an enemy who was the class of the world, naval power wise. Perhaps you missed that, too. As well as having a base in Canada, which you apparently missed. And in the Carrib, which you've also apparently missed. We also had a highly militarized southern neighbor, who turned out incompetent when tested, but whose incompetence couldn't be presumed.

You probably missed this, too, but between Sempach, 1386, and the rise of Revolutionary France, notably about 1798, in other words, within that roughly 1000 years you cite to, when was Switzerland successfully invaded? Short version; don't swap military anecdotes with me; you will lose.



I take it you're our resident anarcho-libertarian or objectivist, stuck in a fantasy world. I don't think I missed anything there. Oh, and I am not apologizing for a fucking thing; I note that the state can be useful in the real world, however detested among anarcho-libertarian fantasy dwellers.

And you haven't answered the fucking question: "So, once again, forbidden or wrong or pick your own term, in the real universe, where people have collected into states to defend or to loot, or both, do you have an objection to people collecting into states to defend, even though the power, like the pistol at my side, may be used for ill, or is it better - again, in that real, non-idealistic, non-intellectual fantasy world - not to collect and die uselessly and hopelessly when faced with force majeure?"

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 7:59 PM  

Oh, and my cognate premise might be something like, "Power exists. Deal with it, don't fantacize about a place where it doesn't exist."

Anonymous VD March 27, 2014 7:59 PM  

Switzerland is mountainous. This is hard on invaders and easier to defend.

I was standing on the side of a mountain in Italian Switzerland overlooking the entire valley, in the company of a retired Marine Recon sniper. He whistled, shook his head, and said: "No wonder the Axis didn't invade here during WWII. A platoon of crack shots could hold off a division."

Anonymous Odessa March 27, 2014 8:03 PM  

I disagree with liberals or leftist on just about everything, but the Wright guy is out of his gourd. I'm not sure he's actually met a liberal or leftist.

However, since he appears to have commented here, can he define what he means when he says the leftist? Are we talking about the Lenin or the useful idiots, or what?

Blogger Russell March 27, 2014 8:08 PM  

"His sentiments are clear. When the time comes we will see which version is the misrepresentation."

You deliberately mangled Wright's words into something he didn't say, in order to put forth your opinion of his motives.

Oh, look: "XVIII.

If you observe that your opponent has taken up a line of argument which will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion, but interrupt the course of the dispute in time, or break it off altogether, or lead him away from the subject, and bring him to others. "

And "XIX.

Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his argument, and you have nothing much to say, you must try to give the matter a general turn, and then talk against that. "

And "
XXIV.

This trick consists in stating a false syllogism. Your opponent makes a proposition, and by false inference and distortion of his ideas you force from it other propositions which it does not contain and he does not in the least mean; nay, which are absurd or dangerous. It then looks as if his proposition gave rise to others which are inconsistent either with themselves or with some acknowledged truth, and so it appears to be indirectly refuted. This is the diversion, and it is another application of the fallacy non causae ut causae."

There are more, of course, but your responses have already been considered and addressed from at least 1831.

Blogger Russell March 27, 2014 8:14 PM  

"I disagree with liberals or leftist on just about everything, but the Wright guy is out of his gourd."

Concerned troll is concerned.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 8:16 PM  

"A platoon of crack shots could hold off a division." Certainly for quite a while, and when that platoon was tired, there were more than half a million more pretty fair shots (actually, the Swiss used to downplay the shit out of how many men they could mobilize) to relieve them. And then there were the Festungen...

Anonymous Josh March 27, 2014 8:30 PM  

How did the conversation between the Nazi diplomat and the Swiss diplomat go? The Swiss said they had a million men under arms, the Nazi said they would invade with two million, the Swiss said they would each just need to shoot twice?

Anonymous Jack Amok March 27, 2014 8:32 PM  

Unless you or Mr. Wright are going to offer up any facts about leftists or any examples of leftists actions

But Wright did provide examples. Well, technically perhaps what he did was make provision for them, but anyway, by simply stating his thesis, he has summoned examples out of the woodwork in droves.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 8:32 PM  

I've read different version of it, Josh, to include Goering and, much earlier, the Kaiser. I suspect the conversation never happened, because it was so obviously true it didn't need restating.

Anonymous Chad March 27, 2014 8:40 PM  

If you are going to try to make a case, you have to have the gumption to first put facts (any facts, please) into evidence.

And you've made it quite clear that your burden of proof for 'evidence' has been set at an unattainable level. In other words DISQUALIFY!!!

The whole 'social justice' fetish the left has these days is an example of the type of tripe the left can come up with. 'Social justice' is merely all the insane crap the left has always wanted to do anyway. Only it sounds incredibly noble. And woe be to anyone who stands in the way of 'justice'.

Honestly, you've illustrated the point of the article well enough. At this point you're really just selling the book (I was going to buy it regardless).You can call it a day. We don't mind. We'll 'carry on'.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 8:41 PM  

"Yes. I recommend you read his Carrera series before assuming he is a statist, much less an apologist for statism. He's simply not an anarchist."

The accusation of statism pops up quite regularly, to include from some pretty die hard libertarian fans. It puzzled me for a long time. Apparently, in a remarkable show of lack of discenrment, a statist, from the anarcho-libertarian perspective, is anyone who is not an anarchist. So minarchist (which I am) = statist. That's sure clear. Yep...

Wright really ought to turn his not inconsiderable talents on the anarcho-libs, who show many of the same intellectual and moral flaws as libleprs.

Blogger Outlaw X March 27, 2014 8:44 PM  

Thanks for letting me know about him.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 8:47 PM  

"'Social justice' is merely all the insane crap the left has always wanted to do anyway."

Yes, but it's not just them. Twisting truth by twisting definitions has been going on at least since the 420s...BC. "First of all, words had to lose their ordinary meanings." Or contemplate the so-fucking-vast-it's-incalculable dishonesty of "The Patriot Act." Why, nobody can object to a program with the word "Patriot" in it, can they? Well, as it turns out, they can't, which is how we end up with abominations like The Patriot Act.

Me, I'd like to enact a new set of laws, the Anti-Linguistic Matricide Act, where Linguistic Matricide is defined as the cold and calculated attempted murder of our mother tongue for purposes of political advantage and/or social engineering. My only question is, "Is hanging good enough or should we crucify the motherfuckers?"

Blogger tz March 27, 2014 8:51 PM  

arhat of enlightenment. Is this a typo of "airhead". As in their head was enlightened so they were light-headed?

And he is wrong on the critical issue. Lucifer became the devil because he was smart, powerful, the cherub above the throne. Satan thinks he is a better god. As do liberals.

Anonymous kh123 March 27, 2014 8:53 PM  

I guess it's safe to assume that any mirroring our beloved cynic's thoughts almost verbatim under another handle, 20 minutes after his last post, is in fact the resident Typhoid Mary.

Blogger Markku March 27, 2014 8:56 PM  

Wikipedia:

In Theravada Buddhism, an Arhat (Sanskrit: अर्हत् arhat; Pali: arahant; "one who is worthy"[1]) is a "perfected person"[1][2] who has attained nirvana.[2][1] In other Buddhist traditions the term has also been used for people far advanced along the path of Enlightenment, but who may not have reached full Buddhahood.[3]

Blogger Markku March 27, 2014 8:58 PM  

NB:

This is not an invitation for Me Guerrero to go all monomaniac.

Anonymous kh123 March 27, 2014 9:00 PM  

"Twisting truth by twisting definitions has been going on at least since the 420s...BC."

Have to go back further and at least include Themistocles if we're going to keep Tad's interest.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 9:04 PM  

Well... I said "at least."

Anonymous automatthew March 27, 2014 9:13 PM  

My only question is, "Is hanging good enough or should we crucify the motherfuckers?"

Hang them by the tongues.

Blogger Markku March 27, 2014 9:15 PM  

It's just ONE little herring. So deliciously red and all. You can eat it. Will only take a minute. I promise you'll be back in no time. Come on! Just one bite.

Just one little bite.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 9:16 PM  

Has a certain poetry to it, automatthew, but might not be practical.

Blogger tz March 27, 2014 9:17 PM  

At this point, you may be wondering why, if they only judge by intentions and not by results, the Liberals are not sometimes helpful to those they wish to help?

They are, but the problem is not what Wright sees, but because they only count those they wish to help, and to the amount they are helped, and ignore everything else.

Those who lose their job because of a regulation or a rise in the minimum wage are invisible to them. The unborn are invisible. The spotlighted Walmart greeter that can now buy something else and the woman who has been convenienced by the slaughter of her child are the only things that matter. They focus like a laser, but unlike a laser, instead of burning what they point at, they burn everything else surrounding it.

He is also wrong on another point. Liberals are the most moralistic people on earth, exceeding even the Christians who enjoy the torture scenes in "24".

Their moral relativism - the critical point he raises through the article - is limited to just one thing: sex. Hence Sandra Fluke's nymphomania is excusable. Bradley Mannings desire for castration (as ESR and others have noted there are people who desire amputation of other things and considered insane) isn't questioned. Divorce and abortion is about sex. (This is Peter Kreeft's observation, but I've not found any contradictory evidence). If you want to test the tolerance of a liberal institution, try lighting a cigarette in an Episcopial church, preferably one where the lesbishopess is going to preside over whatever the liturgy (A "gray mass" is perhaps worse than a "black mass").

Another point is they don't seem to have problem with wealth, as long as it is their cronies who are wealthy at the expense of taxpayers - middle class and poor. They do worse distortions than they claim unfair fate does.

But I would note Jesus himself noted the error. Seek FIRST the kingdom of God. If you gain the world but lose your soul, you are far more poor than anyone starving to death today.

I can also observe that the French Revolution was liberal - they enthroned a prostitute. And brought the reign of terror. It is not new.

Though Wrights wisest and most profound paragraph is the last one.

Anonymous Anonymous March 27, 2014 9:23 PM  

Here's an example, for those (not leftists) honestly interested in one:

Mr. Wright is clearly a bigger fan of Israel and the Jews than I am. But because neither of us is a leftist, if we were to discuss that topic, I would attempt to convince him of the truth of my viewpoint using facts and logic, and I assume he would do the same. Whether or not either of us changed his mind, we might both learn something, and we'd gain some understanding of the other's position.

But if I were a leftist, I wouldn't bother with any of that, because I wouldn't be trying to change his mind or learn anything; I'd only be trying to get him to shut up. So first I might challenge him to prove that Israel is "good." Then, regardless of his response, I might throw out an example of Israel doing something bad, as if any exception he didn't admit up front disqualifies his entire claim. Or I might challenge him to give examples of Jews doing good things, and then pull a No True Scotsman fallacy on those. At no point would I make an actual argument, because I don't intend or expect to convince him of anything. My only goal would be to goad or trap him into making statements that I could disqualify, and ultimately to get him to stop telling others that something is objectively good, because that makes me feelbad.

Blogger Outlaw X March 27, 2014 9:27 PM  

Why, nobody can object to a program with the word "Patriot" in it, can they? Well, as it turns out, they can't, which is how we end up with abominations like The Patriot Act.


If memory serves me right it was passed in October 2001 after the 0/11 attack. They could have named it ""The Twin Towers Act.", "The anti-terrorist Act." or "The Cotton Candy Act." Didn't matter, it was the time and place that passed the act, not the name.

Blogger Outlaw X March 27, 2014 9:28 PM  

That should read 9/11 not 0/11.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 9:43 PM  

Had they so named it, there could have been debate, moderation, and modification, OX. As named? No, too unpatriotic.

I understood. I shall begin criticizing typos the day I've gone a year without making one. Never, in other words.

Blogger The Deuce March 27, 2014 10:01 PM  

Tad:

Ah, I see. As always with the low brow, everything is defined by the degree to which another person's understanding of Christianity is appropriately close to their own understanding of Christianity and from this all else flows.

And so, as we all knew it would, the basis for Tad's insistence that Wright has no basis for calling Leftists less moral turns out to be the idea that there is no real non-subjective moral standard by which anybody can say what is right and wrong, thereby demonstrating both that Leftists are less moral (as Wright said) and that Leftist epistemology holds that truth is unknowable (as Wright also said). It's a twofer.

And, of course, Tad thinks Wright is being very immoral and bad here. Apparently speaking the truth about Leftists violates his own understanding of Christianity (which he doesn't actually believe in) or something.

Blogger LP2021 March 27, 2014 10:32 PM  

Great to read Mr. Kratman's comments.

Stateside many Americans are entering their 6th and 7th year of complete economic depression, those who live in reality manage their money better than those who are in some kind of suspended belief or mind control trick or denial.

Anonymous pilgrim4life March 27, 2014 10:48 PM  

"My only question is, "Is hanging good enough or should we crucify the motherfuckers?""

Crucify. Definitely crucify.

When a man murders his mother tongue in an attempt to deceive and enslave his fellow man he deserves to receive the fullest penalty of the law.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 10:55 PM  

I am inclined to agree with that, Pilgrim, but wasn't sure - am still not entirely sure - that it's right. Still, the case you lay out is a persuasive one, so...

On the other hand, from that well known, Spanish language, high school text from the 25th Century, Historia y Filosofia Moral:


We live in an age of institutionalized fraud. Virtually every age in human history has been an age of institutionalized fraud. Whether it be the fraud of the divine right of kings, the fraud of superior genetics, the fraud of the malleability and perfectibility of man, the fraud that freedom comes without a hefty price, the fraud of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the fraud of the possibility of taxing the rich without them passing the tax on to the middle class and poor…the list of frauds is endless. To expand upon the Old Earther, Rousseau, man may be born free and live everywhere in chains, but more importantly he is born innocent and is everywhere made a fool of. His chains are constructed of his foolishness.

To a great extent man wants to be fooled; indeed, he insists upon it. In his entertainment he will demand that the most trivial things bring the most profound and certain changes for the good. He will reject the politicians who even attempt to speak truth to him, and embrace most warmly those who lie best. He will insist upon the existence of the free lunch. He will rarely understand that those who shout, “Power to the people,” really mean, “Power to those who shout, ‘Power to the people.’” Those who “speak truth to power” are much more likely to be uttering lies to those whose only power is to cast a vote.

And still, amidst all this fraud, there are things that are real, things that are true. A mother’s love for her child, or a husband’s for his child and his wife; these are almost always real. That honor, integrity, and courage are the only things one truly owns is true. The penalty a people ultimately pays for submitting to fraud is real. That political power grows from the barrel of a gun is true. The concrete of a bunker and the steel of a cannon; those are real.

-- Jorge y Marqueli Mendoza, Historia y Filosofia Moral, Legionary Press, Balboa, Terra Nova, Copyright AC 468


So maybe the linguistic matricide has an entrapment defense, he being entrapped by his fellow man's idiocy.

Anonymous automatthew March 27, 2014 10:57 PM  

Has a certain poetry to it, automatthew, but might not be practical.

Either the tongue holds them up, or it doesn't. Win/win.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 11:08 PM  

Yes...but when you're going to execute someone in some child-enlightening fashion (remember; it's for the children), you want to maintain the dignity of the law. When you have to have the executioner actually do work to draw things out, or make up for inadvertent failures in the procedure, that undermines the dignity of the law. That, as I've mentioned here before, is the beauty of crucifixion; it's the very Platonic ideal of miserable but, after the victim's up there, you really don't need to have the executioner do much for three days, and then it's a very simple movement to break the legs.

Anonymous Idle Spectator March 27, 2014 11:20 PM  

Of course, the White Liberal Establishment doesn't truly consider blacks and mestizos to be part of their intelligentsia. Blacks, in particular, serve primarily as an evergrowing political vegetable crop to be watered with government dependency, sunned with endless fawning, fertilized with anti-White racial scapegoating, and reaped at election time in order to enrich the parasite liberal economy of government, slackerdemia, law etc.

The reality is that the idiot liberal religion of Cultural Marxism is a giant scam to steal as much wealth and freedom from nonliberal White America as possible.


Reminds me of "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT!" from academic/"lawyer" Obama.

Where does he think bridges, airplanes, and buildings come from? Someone's ass?

Vox, you didn't build this audience and blog! Clearly you should thank blogger for it. Even though BlogSpot's help is meaningless without your writing.

Blogger Tom Kratman March 27, 2014 11:37 PM  

"fertilized with anti-White racial scapegoating"

I suspect that whatever harm liberalism has done to America as a whole, and American whites in particular - and those harms are great - the harm done by liberalism to blacks probably dwarfs any other.

Blogger IM2L844 March 28, 2014 12:29 AM  

The root of The Unified Field Theory of Liberalism

Anonymous Snowflake March 28, 2014 3:10 AM  

VD: **Disqualify... disqualify... disqualify.... You guys have literally nothing else in your arsenal and can't make a positive case for anything to save your lives.**

When pointing out that there is no evidence showing the existence of an invisible pink unicorn in your garage, it is not necessary to explain what other animals might exist or not exist in the garage.

Anonymous Toby Temple March 28, 2014 3:15 AM  

When pointing out that there is no evidence showing the existence of an invisible pink unicorn in your garage

This type of mentality was used by ancient people before to believe that the earth is flat. Remember, no evidence to suggest to them that the earth is round.

Anonymous Don March 28, 2014 3:32 AM  

Tom - I am sure that blacks have gotten the worst of liberalism. Black men used to work by and large. Black men used to marry, used to father children in wedlock, used to stay out of serious legal prison type trouble.

None of those generalizations hold today. The same problem applies to Indian reservations and to a lesser extent some Hispanics. It appears that Hispanic immigrants might actually be assimilating to black norms when they do assimilate. If that is true Liberals deserve everything coming to them.

Anonymous Snowflake March 28, 2014 3:38 AM  

Toby wrote: **This type of mentality was used by ancient people before to believe that the earth is flat. Remember, no evidence to suggest to them that the earth is round.**

True enough, but evidence was eventually provided. If you want to prove the earth is round, you need to show evidence that the earth is round. If you want to prove an invisible pink unicorn, you need to show evidence of the invisible pink unicorn.

If someone shows that there is either no evidence of the pink unicorn, or (worse yet) evidence that is contradictory to the existence of the invisible pink unicorn in the garage, the fact that they can't show what animals (or lack thereof) are in the garage, does not therefore mean that the pink unicorn exists.

Also - the fact that one thing (a round earth) which is true, but for which at one time there was no evidence of, does not mean that anything or everything else for which there is no evidence is also true. Nor can you properly claim anything, be it a round earth, a flat earth, or a pink unicorn to be true, until you provide evidence of it. Disqualification is valid, in that until you provide evidence, the disqualification holds, and you can't claim that your particular unproven theories are true, simply because there is no other alternate proven theory at the time.

Anonymous Toby Temple March 28, 2014 4:20 AM  

If you want to prove an invisible pink unicorn

And who is attempting to prove that there is an invisible pink unicorn?

1 – 200 of 222 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts