Quote of the day—J.D. Tuccile

Now that lifestyle and political affiliation correlate so closely, it’s awfully easy to taunt the “enemy” by waving a few cultural banners in their faces—or by putting legislation to partisan use. Why run afoul of protections for free speech, thought, and assembly when you can just torment people by piling restrictions on the things they enjoy in life? You can camouflage the targeting as a policy dispute, even though your teammates nudge-and-wink understand that it’s all about sticking it to the latte-sippers or bitter clingers.

Weaponized law. How can that go wrong?—except in every conceivable way.

A little cultural flag-waving is just fine, but it emphasizes very real tribal divisions that raise the stakes in policy disagreements. Law is too dangerous a tool to leave in the hands of opposing tribes who just want to use it to bludgeon one another.

J.D. Tuccile
April 25, 2017
When Laws Become Partisan Weapons
[It’s an escalating process. Each side wanting revenge for the wrongs they have suffered at the hands of their political opponents. This is another justification for strictly limiting the powers of government to the essential services which cannot be practicably supplied by private enterprise.—Joe]


9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—J.D. Tuccile

  1. This smacks of the old admonishment; “It takes two to make a fight”, which attempts to erase the differences between an aggressor and his victim, and blame both for being “unable to come to some kind of compromise”. Note that it is characteristically devoid of any attempt to apply standards of right and wrong, or distinction between aggressor and defender.

    An alliance of aggressors and an alliance of defenders (the intended victims of the aggressors) will of course come up against one another in a continuing escalation of tensions until one side destroys the other, the aggressors repent, or the intended victims capitulate. Duh!

    So what’s the actual point in saying so (or rather, to bring it up without actually saying so), if not to uphold the standards of one alliance over the other? Why not come out and say which side you’re upholding, or enumerate the standards by which you discern one side or the other to be either righteous or evil? If both sides are wrong, then come out and clearly articulate the standards by which you’ve made that determination. Otherwise I’ll conclude that you’re either a) just talking because you like the sound of your own voice, or b) hiding something in an attempt to manipulate,

    The globalists and the ecumenicists both talk about ending conflict without trying to apply any standards of right and wrong. So did Bob Marley;
    “Let’s get together and feel alright”.
    Yeah; “feel”, he said, not “be”. Big difference, for to be alright you have to, among other things, eschew those systems, doctrines and philosophies that aren’t. One can feel alright by simply ignoring the difference between right and wrong, thus getting along with the wrong! See how this works?

    It’s purely authoritarian because, in the end, it always comes down to obeying some dictator (some Pontifex Maximus) and rejecting the Ten Commandments.

    Oh hey, look! On that note, there’s a headline on Drudge this morning which says the mega tech companies are going to the Vatican to discuss “tech ethics” (as if they didn’t already know right from wrong, as if, in their ignorance, they truly wanted to know right from wrong, and as if there were no other way to discover right from wrong than to consult with the pope);

    That’s the global ecumenical movement on parade. Expect to see much, much more.

    I’d say that it’s a conspiracy, but no one knows what that word means anymore so I’ll just say that it is proof of “two or more people cooperating in some nefarious activity”. I wish we had a word for that.

    It’s also the old mindset of the Dark Ages re-asserting itself; echoes of a time in which anyone who wanted to be anyone, or remain anyone, had to go, on public display, through the Vatican so as to demonstrate where all the authority resided.

    • Since I failed to inform you ahead of time that big tech was going to form an alliance with the Vatican, I’ll make up for it slightly by letting you know that all the mega churches, not just the Catholic Church but all of them, will be aligned with big tech and the Vatican, in one giant alliance. Some of the big cheeses in Islam have already signed an agreement of cooperation with the Vatican, just this year, so this isn’t much of prediction being that it’s mostly come true already.

      Just look for it to reach a greater maturity, is all I’m saying, and that will include a more open push (as opposed to the less open push that’s been going on for generations) for Sunday legislation.

      “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
      And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
      . Revelation 13 (KJV)

      Most everyone tries their best to misunderstand the hand and head thing. Hand means by your deeds, and head means by your thoughts. So you don’t have to agree with the Beast, so long as you capitulate in deeds, thus looking as though you agree. You’re a member of the beast either way, is the point. There’s that “going along to get along” thing (conflict avoidance) again, which is the theme of the post.

      Thus compromise and tolerance (of evil) are to be seen as virtues, while adherence to fundamentals is to be regarded as extreme, dangerous and intolerable vice.

      The message is that you will be responsible for the violence perpetrated against you by the leftist aggressors; if you would but capitulate there’d be no violence and thus you with your adherence to principles and upholding of the law are the cause of the violence. If you attempt to defend yourself against criminal aggression you are most especially the cause of violence!

      It’s brilliant, in a way! We among the steadfast upholders of basic principles are easily and repeatedly fooled by it!

    • It appears you miss what I think was the main point. Government is being used to exercise powers not given to it. Instead of fighting for “your side” to gain control of an out of too powerful government the fight should be to get the government back under constitutional control. If that is achieved then who is in control doesn’t much matter. It is my belief this is an easier accomplishment than picking or creating a group of “right thinking” people. This is because both sides can probably see the danger of “the other side” getting control of a too powerful government. This creates an opportunity for consensus. If the fight is over which side is in a position to harass and/or destroy their opposition their will be zero chance of consensus.

      The practicality of achieving that goal is a different question. It could be the answer to that questions is, “At this point in time it is impossible without a total reset.” And in which case we have a different set of questions to answer.

      • If one side is trying to win and the other side is trying to contain the conflict, guess who prevails.

        • And if one side is trying to possess the castle, dungeon, and armory and the other side is trying to replace it with a court house, who wins?

          • Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. And ultimately, that is where the courthouse power comes from too.

  2. Democracy is great. The majority can pass what ever law they wish. They should temper this with the knowledge that, at some point, their worst enemy will be the one to enforce it.

    • Democrats, Progressives, Leftists of all stripes, are incapable of thinking like that. Their intention is to never give up power once they get a sufficiently good grip on it. If they didn’t think like that, they wouldn’t be a threat to start with. This is why they work so diligently to eliminate their closest supporters that put them into power, as they can’t deal with having any potential threat to their position.

      I suspect this lack of historical perspective is why they never lack for supporters. The Leftists have virtually no sense of history. I’m wondering if this might be cause or effect in them. It’s a really obvious character trait in the ones I’ve dealt with.

Comments are closed.