Category: Marxists

Plus Ça Change…

Marxists, QOTD

I’ve just finished re-reading Barbara Tuchman’s The Proud Tower — which, if you haven’t read yet, I urge you to do so — and despite the fact that Tuchman was a tired old Lefty, she still was of an era where historians relied on facts, uncomfortable though they may be.  Unlike today’s crop of Newspeak toads, for whom the old adage “If the facts don’t conform with the theory, they must be eliminated” is carved into their stony little hearts.

Here’s one such fact, and it’s a quote of then-Speaker of the House Thomas B. Reed (R-Maine), who said of the Progressives of his era:

It was true of Progressives back then, and it’s still more true of their philosophical descendants of today, whether politicians, Greens or the Gender Studies Brigade [some considerable overlap].

Seriously:  think of Guam “tipping over”, the “trillion-dollar coin”, “defunding the police”, “anthropomorphic climate change”, “ESG”, “patriarchal hegemony”, “DEI”, “Green New Deal” and all the other modernist, oh-so fashionable tropes and tell me that these “philosophies” (actually more like religions because they rely on belief rather than substance) are not doing today exactly what Reed ascribed to the mountebanks of his era.

Actually, today’s “progressive” tropes are even more antithetical to knowledge than before, because they insist on ignoring or worse, destroying the fundamentals of civilization’s accrued wisdom — because it’s obvious that it’s only without that wisdom that their policies can survive the first question or challenge.

Even worse, when the time comes to write the history of their many failures, the historians, being of the same tribe, will almost certainly lie and ascribe the causes thereof to “fascists”, “counterrevolutionaries” (an old Marxist standby), “revanchists”, “Trumpists” or whatever their fevered little imaginations can devise — anything other than admit to the inherent fallacies of their policies and the crashing, grinding failures and concomitant miseries caused thereby.

Even Tuchman would weep.

[stupidity erased because embarrassing]

Predictable Commie Response

Marxists, Politics, Third World

As many people know, Chile is one of my favorite countries on Earth;  so when I saw that the Commies had been routed in the last elections there, I did a little Happy Dance:

Chile’s most prominent right-wing party has romped an election on Sunday night aimed at selecting members for the constitutional assembly responsible for drafting the country’s new constitution.

The assembly was tasked with creating a new constitution to replace the one that was implemented during the military rule of General Augusto Pinochet which many credited for making Chile the most prosperous country in the region.

Needless to say, the Commies wanted to get rid of this horrible thing because Commies:

A draft by a predominantly left-wing assembly was overwhelmingly rejected in a national referendum. The draft had proposed numerous changes, including replacing the Senate with a Chamber of Regions and recognizing Chile as a “plurinational state,” granting indigenous groups additional rights and guarantees.

It also guaranteed several social benefits and environmental standards, making it one of the most progressive constitutions worldwide.

But unfortunately for them:

The proposal was turned down by 62 percent of voters in September 2022, prompting the latest election.

The Republican Party, led by conservative firebrand José Antonio Kast, emerged victorious with 22 seats after winning over 35 percent of the votes.

Here’s what happens next:

The assembly will now face the challenging task of reconciling the conservative majority’s ideas with the demand for change that sparked the process. Starting from June, the newly appointed constitutional councilors will have a four-month window to deliberate, converse, and implement alterations to a new constitution.

A final decision from the voters on the redraft will be made via another vote in December. If Chileans reject the updated constitution, the country will retain its previous Pinochet-era constitution.

Looks good for our side, huh?  A decisive (conservative) majority is about to set about making changes to the national constitution, if needed.

Well, the Left aren’t going to let a little thing like a popular majority interfere with their plans, of course.  So in typical fashion, they’ve responded the way they always do in such situations:

Unidentified hooded men attacked the home of conservative Republican Party lawmaker Héctor Urban on Tuesday evening. Urban was recently elected to help draft a new constitution for Chile.

The attack at Urban’s residence took place hours after a group of unidentified men set a vehicle on fire that belonged to the local Victoria Municipality and opened fire on the government official that drove the vehicle, seriously injuring one of his legs. Urban’s father, René Urban, a farmer who was presently working at the scene of the fire, also had his truck shot at but suffered no injuries.

Unknown assailants also attacked a police station in the town after the attack on Urban’s residence on Tuesday evening. Two members of Chile’s Carabineros law enforcement gendarmerie were reportedly injured with pellets. 

Yeah, “unidentified gunmen” — probably some of those White Christian supremacist groups that we’re always hearing about.

These scumbags are the brothers-in-arms of those Leftist bastards who violently demonstrated outside the homes of our conservative Supreme Court justices and made death threats against them around the time of the Dobbs (anti-Roe v. Wade) decision.

Quote Of The Day

Gummint, Marxists, Watermelons

From Steve Kruiser:

“The radical leftists don’t have the numbers on any issue, they merely have volume.”

He’s writing in the present tense specifically about the trannie issue, but the truth of the matter is that the radical Left has never had the numbers on any issue, ever.

Which is why they try to rule with a Vanguard, or an unelected Politburo, or by bureaucratic regulation when they can’t get their laws passed.

Always a minority, posing as a majority — just another of their parade of lies ever since they began.

The “Clean Vs. Dirty” Thing

Conservatism, Essays, Marxists, Wokism

One of Jeff Goldstein’s fine statements in Maybe I’ll be there to shake your hand (as discussed in the above post) is this one:

The Global Elites behind BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, the WEF, the WHO, the UN, et al., have never liked that presumptuous, barely-credentialed nobodies, can get on planes and travel the globe, just as they do. They never accepted that the filthies can eat a fine rib eye, or drive a nice car, or own a comfortable home — and not have to rely on their largess, or answer to their diktats.

For those who missed the allusion to “filthies”, here’s its foundation:  another Jeff (Tucker) wrote a brilliant piece called Clean vs. Dirty: A Way to Understand Everything, and here’s its basic premise:

It is possible to understand nearly everything going on today – the Covid response, the political tribalism, the censorship, the failure of the major media to talk about anything that matters, the cultural and class divides, even migration trends – as a grand effort by those people who perceive themselves to be clean to stay away from people they regard as dirty.
…
They don’t want pet waste on their carpet, thus comparing ideas with which they disagree with a nasty pathogen. They are seeking to stay clean.
In this case and in every case, they are glad for the government to operate as the clean-up crew. It’s dirty ideas and people who hold them they oppose. They don’t want to have friends who articulate them or live in communities where such people live.

And the reason they don’t want to deal with people like Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, Elon Musk or, for that matter, any unwashed scum with uncomfortable ideas supported by incontrovertible evidence and/or historical precedent — the reason is that their own worldview is based upon theory and (they think) altruism.  The thing about both theory and altruism is that these are clean philosophies — their motives are pure, you see — and they hate to see those cherished ideals get messed upon when some Unwashed (like, for example, me) points out that their climate “science” is based upon shaky data and wishful thinking, while their predictive models are hopelessly in accurate and cannot form the basis of social or political policy.

The Cleanies likewise hate it when someone lowers income tax rates, because revenues will be “lost” — except, of course, that anyone with the slightest knowledge of history (never mind economics) can point out that when tax rates are cut, tax revenues increase, in some cases massively.

But those messy, messy realities sully the purity of their philosophy, so best to ignore — or better yet, suppress — those dirty realists.

Of course, the reality I’d like to impose on them is fairly simple:

…but no doubt, someone’s going to have a problem with this Occamic proposition.

It might, however, be the only solution — messy though it is.

Two Choices

Government Thugs, Marxists, Resistance, Rights

Well, here’s confirmation of something we’ve all been suspecting for a while:

Our government is preparing to monitor every word Americans say on the internet—the speech of journalists, politicians, religious organizations, advocacy groups, and even private citizens. Should those conversations conflict with the government’s viewpoint about what is in the best interests of our country and her citizens, that speech will be silenced.

Research by The Federalist reveals our tax dollars are funding the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning (ML) technology that will allow the government to easily discover “problematic” speech and track Americans reading or partaking in such conversations.

Then, in partnership with Big Tech, Big Business, and media outlets, the government will ensure the speech is censored, under the guise of combatting “misinformation” and “disinformation.”

Originally used as a marketing tool for businesses to track discussions about their brands and products and to track competitors, the DOD and other federal agencies are now paying for-profit public relations and communications firms to convert their technology into tools for the government to monitor speech on the internet.

The areas of the internet the companies monitor differ somewhat, and each business offers its own unique AI and ML proprietary technology, but the underlying approach and goals remain identical: The technology under development will “mine” large portions of the internet and identify conversations deemed indicative of an emerging harmful narrative, to allow the government to track those “threats” and adopt countermeasures before the messages go viral.

One would hope, of course, that this gross breach of the First Amendment would not pass judicial muster, but in true fascist form, the State has simply farmed its bastardy out to the private sector, thus creating a Clinton-like “technicality” that creates plausible deniability.

I also have no faith — none — that the Supreme Court will act in the Constitution’s best interests.  (Okay, maybe a couple of the conservative  justices may throw a hissy fit, but let’s just say that I wouldn’t put money on a full court decision because the Communist bloc will never vote against the socialist government, and the chief justice is a craven little fart who seems to caste his vote according to the New York fucking Times  editorial opinion.)

The two choices one faces in confronting this looming catastrophe are therefore:

  1. Try to go “underground” (e.g. using the Soviet-era samizdat  method) and hope that one can go undetected by the feral ferrets, or
  2. Stand astride the barricades, shouting “FUCK YOU!” at the top of your voice, at every opportunity.

The first choice is probably doomed to failure, if The Federalist is to be believed, because these bastards have already the tools to do what they want to do.  Remember, the power of samizdat lay on the fact that it used actual paper — hidden printing presses and such — to spread the counter-State “disinformation”.  Consider that your Epson or Brother printer already records everything you print and can therefore point a finger right at you, if you are judged to have written doubleplusungood crimethink, and the paper option disappears pretty quickly.

Longtime Readers will know that I’m far more likely to take the second choice, simply because that’s the path I’ve always chosen.  Yes, it’s most likely a stupid, futile gesture just like the Delta frat’s destruction of the Animal House town parade;  but always remember that in such a situation the Niedermayer character — the State — won’t be the only one carrying live ammunition.

And as I’ve said several times in the past that when it comes to dying I’d prefer to die in my wife’s arms;  but spitting and cursing at the State from the barricades surrounded by expended brass doesn’t hold much terror, either.

I’m speaking figuratively, of course, in the latter scenario — but unfortunately for the State apparatchiks, I took an oath when I became a U.S. citizen, and I take that oath really seriously.  My allegiance is not to the State — in whatever flavor it comes — but to the ideals and promises contained in the Constitution.

And I don’t need the fucking lawyers on the Supreme Court to interpret them for me.