The constantly shifting Orwellian language codes are important, because the insider-lingo allows leftists to feel a sense of smug superiority to their fellow man. Or as Jeffrey Folks wrote at the American Thinker last year, “For liberals, the distinction between the ‘dumb masses’ and their enlightened selves renders life meaningful.  Disdain for ordinary folks is not just an ancillary trait of liberalism.  It is fundamental to the its nature.”

Ed Driscoll
November 10, 2019
TESTING THE LIMITS OF THE NEWSPEAK DICTIONARY
[This reminds me of the attitude of the Nazis toward the “inferior races”. See also what I wrote about the Communist Manifesto. The most important part in this context is:

The Communist Manifesto tells its readers that supporters of Communism are the intelligent people. They deserve, are destined to, and the good of all human kind depends on them, being in charge. That they “understand” the benefits of Communism to the bafflement of others is probably proof to them that they are the intellectual superiors of those that think Communism is, at best, prone to abuse.

The political left enables people to feel superior to others. They are told they are more “enlightened”, more “tolerant”, and just better people. If their “inferiors” adapt beliefs and behaviors which close the gap the left must find a new basis to feel superior. It is fundamental to their nature.

Like a spoiled child we must set firm limits and enforce them. The alternative is to climb aboard the crazy train on its way to a special version of hell.—Joe]

Corruption, murder and starvation aren’t incompatible with socialism–most often they’re a requirement.

David Harsanyi @davidharsanyi
Tweeted on October 11, 2019
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

The Democrats’ electoral strategy is very simple and straightforward:

• Identify an injustice or slight that has been perpetrated on a specific victim group
  

• Blame that injustice or slight on Republican policies
  

• Propose a free government handout program that will alleviate their hardship
  

• Show how the funding for that handout will come from raising taxes on white conservative “rich people” who don’t deserve their ill-gotten financial fortunes anyway.
  

• Ban things as necessary to consolidate power.

Metallicman
October 25, 2018
The Many Things that Democrats want to Ban (Running List)
[H/T to SayUncle.

If you have 10 minutes or so read the entire list.

He’s not wrong.—Joe]

Among the many things the “Right” still doesn’t understand is that the Left has concluded that this particular show need no longer go on. They don’t think they need a foil anymore and would rather dispense with the whole bother of staging these phony contests in which each side ostensibly has a shot.

Publius Decius Mus
September 5, 2016
The Flight 93 Election
[H/T Oppo.

This was clearly visible in September 2016 and it is now arc light illuminated three years later.—Joe]

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]