Quote of the day—Wraith

Leftism is, at its core, based upon the abject and unapologetic denial of observable reality.

They’re not just insane, they’re proudly insane. Point out their hypocrisy until Gabriel blows his horn, and it won’t affect them a bit. We’re dealing with people who have knowingly and willingly turned their backs on any form of logic and reason. The only reason they’re winning is that sane people haven’t stepped up and put them in the rubber room where they obviously belong.

April 11, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Alan Korwin
[I don’t think a “rubber room” is appropriate for all of them. Some belong in prison.

And there are alternatives which I believe will work with most of them. But it’s a time consuming process and requires some isolation.—Joe]


17 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Wraith

  1. I will argue that if the majority or a near majority of people are leftists, it has to be attributed to human nature rather than an abnormal mental state. Human nature is to believe what we want to believe and reject that which we don’t want to be true. Given plenty of seemingly important people who tell us what we want to hear, it is easy to believe a falsehood.

    • Not necessarily. In certain parts of the world nearly everyone is Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Atheist. I think it depends more on your social group. The one thing that I think is human nature is that reality is difficult to discern. People can easily believe things that are at odds with the physical evidence and logical necessity.

  2. Can we define “leftism” for purposes of this discussion? Because it sounds like “wraith” (this is the Internet, are we sure this writer isn’t a dog?) is asserting that his/her/its political views are correct and everybody else’s are wrong, and that political enemies should be imprisoned. That assertion would by definition be a repudiation of democracy as a valid system of government.

    • Political left refers to the socialist -> communist spectrum. This would include national socialists, world socialists, and democrat socialists, as well as “pure” communists.

      I it appears to me that Wraith was saying “leftism” is wrong and says nothing about what is correct. This is the problem we all face when trying to discern reality. It’s easier to see flaws than it is to determine what is true. “Leftist” tend to not be accepting of extremely clear evidence which shows they are wrong.

      One of the questions I sometimes use when confronting people on some point of contention is, “What is your process for determining truth from falsity.” I find “leftist” have difficulty even understanding the question let alone answer it in a meaningful way. If they don’t have a process for determine truth from falsity then all they have are unsubstantiated beliefs and I’m have no tolerance for them.

      If they have, or conspire to, deny people their rights then they should be prosecuted for their crimes. It’s not political enemies, per say, it’s the commission of crimes that are, almost, by definition part of their political agenda that should earn them their convictions.

      • Does this mean that democrats like my parents, who are in no way socialist/communist/generally nutty, are “centrists” rather than “on the left?” I find it difficult to reconcile my parents with the descriptions and proposals you set out (or quote) in many of these posts that refer to “the left.”

        I harp on the issue of definition because some folks commenting here clearly believe my parents are traitors for being democrats and should be punished/imprisoned/killed. Others are more reasonable, and focus on the real enemy which is communism/fascism/isms that don’t support individual freedom. When I see generalizations like “the left” (which in mainstream use encompasses a huge swath of the population across a wide range of ideas) I tend to assume that imprecision of language reflects an imprecision of thought. Which makes it hard to argue with, both because the generalization isn’t something I can directly address, and because my reaction to the generalization makes me the think the speaker isn’t trying to make a rational argument or statement that’s supportable by debatable facts.

        • That would depend upon the particular political agendas they advocate. I find it difficult to believe there is someone who is in alignment with Democrats and doesn’t have significant socialist goals.

          • Well, it’s not like the Republicans are any less interested in socialism. They just want it for a different group. Leftist democrats (e.g Bernie Sanders, as opposed to centrist) want socialism for the masses. Republicans (rightist? centrist? I don’t know which side) want socialism for the rich. Viz the most recent budget bill. Or pretty much the entire republican leadership, with Trump right there leading the charge.

          • I don’t identify with Republicans. The best that can be said of them is they are the strongest opposition to the worst leftists.

    • Leftism = collectivism in any form. Be it social, economic or political, anyone who believes that that individuals are merely parts of a collective, and may be sacrificed for the good of the collective, is a leftist.

      • Many if not most democrats aren’t collectivists. How should we describe democrats on the left/right spectrum? And where do libertarians fit in? I’m certainly not “right wing,” and I’m not “left wing…”

        I apparently don’t get a wing.

        • The left/right spectrum is obsolete, retained only for familiarity. The real question is Individualist vs,. Collectivist. If you’ve ever made an identity statement (“as a Black/Female/whatever…”), you’re a social collectivist. If you support the notion of “you didn’t build that”, you’re an economic collectivist. If you believe that individual rights may be violated so that others may “feel safe”, you’re a political collectivist. There are many other examples, but these three should be enough for you to understand what I mean by “collectivist”.

          • I sent the link for the political quiz to my brother. He had an interesting response which I asked if he minded if I posted it to this blog. With his permission, here it is:

            Well, I’m a Libertarian. Of course, they didn’t have ‘Classical Liberal’ as one of the options.

            One of my disagreements with the Libertarians is the idea that there is a distinction between personal and economic liberty. They are in fact unitary. For instance, imagine that you have gov’t that allows ‘Free Speech’ but prohibits you from taking the associated economic actions like buying paper, renting a meeting hall, and so forth. On the flip side, Citizen’s United reversed over a century of gov’t action that argued – and had been upheld by SCOTUS – that one’s economic activity could be used as a reason to constrain speech.

            If a group of people want to limit your freedom to act in the marketplace of things, they will eventually limit your freedom to act in the marketplace of ideas. Look to the Left/Democrats in this regard for an example of historical evolution from suppressing one mode of action to add suppressing the other.

            The Repubs/Conservatives (which I call ‘the putative Right’ as they have no discoverable principles in support of Individual Rights) have never been principled in their upholding economic rights, so theirs is not as clear cut an evolutionary process as the Left is. But the gist is that any ideology that supports violating rights in one area of activity will eventually support rights’ violations in other areas.

            If you want a really short quiz to see whether people support individual rights in both the political and economic sphere, ask one question. Do they support the right of consenting adults to come to their own arrangements in regard to the exchange of sexual activity for money, property, or other considerations while bearing the consequences of such actions upon themselves (No externalities or 3rd party impositions). If they do, then they support liberty. If they don’t, then they don’t.

            The Law is subsidiary to morality. To use the law to enforce morality as a whole is to invert the logical hierarchy. The purpose of government is not to enforce a general morality, it is to protect individual rights against criminal trespass (which is a subset of morality). By doing so, they make it possible for individuals to act on a moral basis in a social setting in accord with their best understanding of what that morality would be. And reap the consequences, good or bad, for the validity of that understanding.

  3. OK, let me clear this up a bit.

    When referring to ‘leftists’ I refer to those people who are engaged in doublethink–holding two contradictory viewpoints in their head simultaneously and believing both to be absolutely true.

    “Why would you carry a gun? No one wants to hurt you, and if you think they do, you’re just a PARANOID RIGHT WING OPPRESSOR WHO SHOULD BE KILLED!!”

    “Men have all the power in America. Women are totally oppressed and have no agency, and if you don’t agree, I’ll call the cops and tell them you raped/harassed me.”

    Nonviolent march by all colors and types 2A activists: “Angry mob of cishet White men seething with hatred.” Antifa-led Leftists beating people, looting and burning: “Peaceful protest.”

    When your viewpoints are not only clearly at odds with objective reality, but *in direct contradiction with another viewpoint you hold,* you are insane. There really isn’t any other way to put it.

  4. “Does this mean that democrats like my parents, who are in no way socialist/communist/generally nutty, are “centrists” rather than “on the left?” I find it difficult to reconcile my parents with the descriptions and proposals you set out (or quote) in many of these posts that refer to “the left.” ”

    If someone is voting Democrat Party, they are socialist. That party has been socialist since at least FDR’s regime, if not earlier. The mistake too many people make is not being honest in their actions. They dislike the label, for various honest and dishonest reasons, but the reality is, if it walks and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

    My father abhorred government regulations and big brotherism, for the most part, and was annoyed that he had to keep his hunting guns outside of NJ. He was a teacher in a vo-tech high school, and got tossed when the conservative administrator retired in the mid 80’s. Yet, when I visited in ’99, I was stunned to find he was voting for the Democrats that were actively working to take away his gun rights (what little there was left in NJ). He didn’t seem to make the connection. He had (accidentally/unintentionally perhaps) become what he had previously disparaged. I suspect there are other voters like him, that can’t see the connection between themselves and the juggernaut that will end up destroying their world, if it’s given the chance.

    One of the extremely common characteristics of those on the left is a reliance on emotion to support their political position. Discussing facts or history just confuses them at a minimum, or enrages them if they get frustrated, which easily happens. They can’t seem to understand cause and effect. And, frankly, history doesn’t seem to exist for them. With no sense of history, you don’t see people/nations making the same mistakes over and over. THAT is the important thing about history, which is why the left makes sure history is not taught in our schools.

    A common mistake is to think politics stays fairly static. Especially for those who haven’t studied US history, let alone world history. JFK couldn’t get elected dog catcher in a Democrat enclave today. I’m not sure he would even fit into the current day Repubs.

    Too many people have this disconnect between the labels they hear, and what they associate with the label. Humans like to pigeon-hole others with convenient labels, but don’t bother to update the data associated with those labels. Labels work well at the tribal level, but not so much when society gets more complicated. Along with that, the left(Marxist/communist/socialist/Progressive) likes to change the definition of labels, to confuse people and hide their actions.

    • >> If someone is voting Democrat Party, they are socialist.
      >> Humans like to pigeon-hole others with convenient labels

      You’re arguing against yourself here. If you don’t like labels, don’t use them.

      Wrt all democrats being socialists, perhaps I’ll need you to define “socialist.” Because the dictionary definition (“a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”) is clearly not the philosophy of even the majority of democrats, much less all of them.

      >>the juggernaut that will end up destroying their world

      You mean the democratic juggernaut that’s currently holding…none of the 3 branches of government? Perhaps this is some new meaning of that word with which I’m not familiar.

      >>With no sense of history, you don’t see people/nations making the same mistakes over and over. THAT is the important thing about history, which is why the left makes sure history is not taught in our schools.

      You realize that republicans are busy trying to rewrite the general school curriculum to their own ends as well, right? Creationism isn’t appearing in public schools because the magic creationism fairy dropped it off one night into the books. The distortion of history (i.e. history being the story written by the victorious, having little to do with the full reality of what happened) is a habit common to humans regardless of political persuasion.

  5. Pingback: Doomed | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.