Bullying a 7th Grader: One Step Closer to a Progressive Theocracy

Boy, 12, dares to speak up for President Trump in class. Teacher asks student why he supports 'a racist and a pedophile.'

There is so much talk about how Donald Trump is the embodiment of authoritarianism and that it is Republicans who are the antecedents of a "Republic of Gilead". The supposed connection to Atwood's Gilead is that her invented state is an authoritarian "theocracy", based on (apparently) Atwood's view of orthodox Christianity, and, Republicans (supposedly) want to create laws mandating a similar authoritarian "theocracy".  This analysis is quite shallow--it certainly wouldn't pass muster in any real high school Language Arts course (not sure any of these exist anymore... isn't the purpose school indoctrination now?). 

You see, "theocracies", like Atwood's Gilead, aren't primarily a function of any particular "religion". They are simply an authoritarian state that is based on some structure of beliefs passed on as cultural norms/expectations--as opposed to authoritarian states based on cults of personality (dictatorships), ethnicity/group membership (apartheid, tribalism) or enforced "security" (military states/dictatorships).  The dystopia that Atwood writes about could have arisen from any set of cultural beliefs... environmentalism, communism, socialism, Islamism, Judaism.... The real question is "Is there a group of people who want to stamp out disagreement, who are seeking to limit what others can do, who have decided that, because they disagree with you, you are a bad person?"  (*Quick side note connected to questions at end: freeing legislatures and state and local governments to choose their own courses is NOT limiting what others can do... now, those legislatures may choose to do that, but relinquishing Federal control itself necessarily empowers citizens.)

I call supporters of politicians like Biden and Harris "progressives", because I don't see them behaving as "liberals"... Liberals take as their founding philosophy the ideals of " liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law" (check out the wikipedia page, if you wonder about this)... hence "liberals" explicitly DON'T want to stamp out disagreement, DON'T seek to limit your freedom, and DON'T judge your personal worth based on whether you agree with them.  Progressives, on the other hand, believe that the purpose of government is to enforce particular social and personal outcomes, in order to "progress" from unenlightened/uncivilized to enlightened/civilized with collective "empirical knowledge as the foundation of society". "Progressives take the view that progress is being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor... the intense and often violent conflict between capitalists and workers, [and argue] that [government] measures [are] needed to address these problems."  Progressives DO want to stamp out disagreement (anything that does not conform to their collectivist assessment of "empirical knowledge" [think "It is Known.", or "scientific consensus"]), they DO want to limit your freedom (think Animal Farm, "and what then would we do if you made the *wrong* choice?"), and they DO judge your personal worth based on whether you agree (or act like you agree) with them (if you disagree, you are an unenlightened troglodyte, deserving of any bad thing done to you).

You see, *progressivism* IS a religion!  Like Christian beliefs imbued by studying the Bible, so the "empirical knowledge" dispensed by whomever sits atop the progressive thought pyramid is to be "believed"--How many times have you been asked, or asked, "But don't you believe in science?" This is the antithesis of rationalism--and the height of religion: secular empiricism. YOU cannot know, or do not know, BUT the collective DOES, and THEY are the truth, and the way, and the light.  Do you "believe" in "science"??  Talk about Orwellian!

Worse, while the hosts of modern Christians seek to convince you to share their beliefs, they explicitly assert your worth as a human EVEN WHEN YOU SPIT IN THEIR FACES.  Modern progressives?? Well, just show up to 7th grade supporting an opposing politician, and, well...........

For all those who love the Gilead references, I caution you. Gilead is not Christian, and not "conservative". It IS a theocracy--an authoritarian state where certain cultural beliefs and practices have come to be personally and collectively required under force of social pressure and law.  The in-book proponents of Gilead have dressed their authoritarian theocracy in the terminology of "Christianity", but they worship the god of control, not any Christian God.

Are you a proponent of Gilead? The heart of it... the worship of "control of others"?

Ask yourself... what should be done with those who disagree with you? Are they less human than you? Is it necessary to correct them? If so, how? What is ok to do to them? Fire them? Shout at them at dinner? Insult their children? Should your beliefs be inscribed in law? Or maybe not "your beliefs", rather "certain" beliefs that should be inscribed in law? If so, what are they? Should we seek to socially ostracize ("cancel") people who argue against us? Is empowering state and local governments, and legislatures, "empowering" the people, or must state and local governments and legislatures be "reigned in" to protect the people? What is more moral, sacrificing freedom in exchange for equality of outcome, or suffering inequality of outcome to be free?  Is it the role of the 9 unelected to make our society what we want, or is the job of the 535? ... or is it not governments job to force citizens to behave in certain ways, even to reshape society?

Should government control the people (for the good!), or should the people control the government (despite the bad)?... and how should we treat 7th graders we disagree with?

Dangerously close to a manifesto...

This is old, but as more and more GOP donors start to wonder what the heck happened to their big give to the Bush/Kasich/InsertEstablishmentRINOHere super-PAC, this is something maybe they will start to pay attention to.... 

Where big GOP bucks could matter (NYPost, 2012)

See, almost no thinking people are "in play".  They've already figured out which way they are going to vote.  It's the vast swathe of generously named "low-information voters" who vote with a meme, a "NARRATIVE"(tm), and as part of the crowd, that are gettable.  This is where progressives (especially economic soft-socialists and gentle-touch neo-liberal -ism apologists) have a major "structural" advantage (call this "the distributed costs problem"), but also where Hillary has a potential major issue... 

Obama pulls off the "I am your King" (the defining aspect of his presidency and modern progressivism more broadly) because he has maintained an iron-clad image of altruism ("Do what I say, because I say, and because I know best").  Hillary's open commission of felonies, if combined with clear self-dealing via the Foundation, represent a major hole through which a negative popular "meme" could emerge. 

This is also where most in the political class begin completely mis-understanding the success of Trump.  It seems easy to "anti-meme" Trump (and therefore separate him from his low-information voter base)... until you discover that he somehow embraces and consumes your anti-meme, and hits back with an even more chuckle-inducing anti-meme of his own.  At that point establishment figures (on both sides) start spluttering about truth and facts... but the first rule of low-information voter politics is that there is no such thing as truth or facts... or at least, that if they exist, they are way less important than "THE NARRATIVE"(tm) and it's daughter memes. 

So what should conservatives/libertarians do?  First, recognize that democracy (that is, pure democracy) was doomed from the beginning.  The only question is will those who believe in individual freedom rule, or will those who believe in central control rule.  Second, recognize that in a democracy, the mob will and has always controlled who rules, and it's personalities, *narratives*, that win the mob. 

In the distant past this idea was that democracy would "work" only so far as the community was small enough that a single voice could be heard by all.  This is absolutely still true.  Today, though, the limitation is not on how loud or far the voice travels, but rather does the voice break through as one of the finite channels people are hearing among the absolute cacophony around them.  This is exactly the same idea as "how loud" a single voice is... just in a different technological environment. 

Third, given these facts, recognize that a voice's volume and reach can now be purchased with money.  Facebook, Google, Yahoo, the Today Show, the Tonight Show, Comedy Central, The Onion, The NYTimes, CNN, Fox News, ESPN, Netflix, HBO, Hulu, etc, etc, etc.  The channels "the masses" are fed their opinions through can all be bought. 

Of course, this is also the great precipice we stand on... don't settle for "the masses" meme of what "fascism" is... consider this discussion, for example: Economics of Fascism (Wikipedia).  You see, government knows already that the great feeding tube delivering opinions to the masses can be bought... they been renting-to-own for years. 

I love listening to progs bash big business, because progs *love* big business! The bigger the business, the fewer the "market" players, the easier it is to "keep the economic players in line"... When DC says jump, Detroit/Bentonville/Wall Street/Hollywood/InsertFawning"PrivatelyOwned"ConduitOfCentrlControlHere ask how high? Big business stands as the whipping boy for progressive self-flagellation, and, in return, is assured "market" protection in the form of arcane and absolutely smothering regulation that ensure no meaningful competitors could ever emerge.

Is the creeping loss of individual liberty inevitable?  Can it be stopped?  I honestly don't know.  But I agree with Glenn Reynolds: There are places GOP big bucks could matter...

Out of the Mainstream - Science Edition

Back in the Saddle

It's been quite a long break, and just to get things rolling again, some fun science-related articles that I have been collecting:

Finally proof that computer gaming and science go hand-in-hand:

Experience Relativity Firsthand In MIT Video Game That Slows The Speed Of Light

By Clay Dillow, Posted 11.07.2012 at 3:00 pm

When light slows to the speed of a stroll, things get very, very strange.

Nice to see Materials Science & Engineering making the national news!

Paper-thin super material stops flying bullets

By Alyssa Danigelis, Published November 14, 2012

Bulletproofing for soldiers and law enforcement officers has lightened up considerably in recent years, but it promises to get insanely thin with new nanotechnology coming out of MIT and Rice University.

And a fun commentary on Albert Einstein... or at least, his brain!

Einstein’s brain was different from other people’s

By Deborah Byrd - November 19, 2012

A new study led by Florida State University evolutionary anthropologist Dean Falk has revealed that portions of the brain of Albert Einstein are unlike those of most people. The differences could relate to Einstein’s unique discoveries about the nature of space and time. 

Our Dawning New Age...

On CNN tonight, they talked about the "new electorate", the young, minorities, etc.  About the same time, I stumbled on this tidbit from an NCAAP poll:

95% blacks say Feds should provide jobs 

Paul Bedard - November 6, 2012 - 2:33 pm  

Providing an 11th hour clue to how blacks will vote on the presidential stage, 95 percent of African Americans believe that the federal government should be the nation's jobs creator...

I think this is representative of this "new electorate"...  The only way to win them is to buy them.  I don't know why, and I don't know how, but my generation and younger have somehow convinced themselves that government, not individual initiative, is the engine of civilization, prosperity, and progress.

There's a quote attributed to Ben Franklin that sums up the dawning new age that this philosophy will bring:

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

When democracy becomes a tool to expropriate what you want from others, we are all slaves.

What does it mean for you and me today? Maybe nothing... but the long, inexorable decline has truly begun.

Still true today...

This is exactly what I posted to Facebook four years ago on the Monday before the 2008 election:

To any who remain undecided, or who might be swayed in the final hours:

Here are two relevant definitions of "freedom" from dictionary.com:

"2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.  

3. the power to determine action without restraint."

And a couple of quotes from Ben Franklin:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."

It may be tempting to cede freedom to government in exchange for the promise of "universal" health insurance, or a tax system where only the "rich" pay taxes, or "protection" from Chinese/Japanese/Mexican companies, but, ultimately, it won't work.

If anything, the last century has demonstrated that government control and government planning always do worse than freedom. (See the end of the cold war.)

Barack Obama has many high hopes for and eloquent words about government. But at the end of the day, he honestly believes that government control is better than freedom. Education, taxes, trade, domestic economics, labor relations--on all of these issues, his faith lies in central government control and central government planning.

I honestly believe that this is completely wrong, and that his leadership would be a disaster for our nation....

 This is at least as true today. Maybe even more so, as Obama has nothing to offer but more of the same divisive, punitive, central-planning, government-centered ideas.  I cannot support such a philosophy.

Summaries of the Benghazi incident... is this really Obama's doctrine?

If you get your news from CNN, Jon Stewart, the NY Times, or any other MSM media outlet, you probably don't know much about Benghazi... and, whatever you know, you're probably having a hard time figuring out why some people keep talking about it.

In case you need a bit of catching up, here are two relatively up to date summaries (one more sanitized than the other):

Benghazi: Obama's Actions Amount To A Shameful Dereliction Of Duty

Peter Ferrara, 10/25/2012 @ 9:19AM 

"Enough facts are in the public record about the Benghazi murders of Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 others, including two Marines, that a final judgment can be rendered on President Obama’s handling of the affair.  Obama’s actions, or inactions, amounted to dereliction of duty, and worse."

Benghazi Timeline: The long road from "spontaneous protest" to premeditated terrorist attack

Eugene Kiely, October 26, 2012 at FactCheck.org


We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. ... [But] we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack...[,] they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.



Note that even FactCheck.org can't get the lipstick on this pig!

I've already commented on the fact that there were American assets in place that were refused permission to defend Ambassador Stevens and his team.  We still don't know exactly who the feckless coward is that couldn't authorize every available means to defend these Americans... and MSM sure isn't asking.

Now, though, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is digging the Obama team an even bigger hole.  Here's Panetta's summary of why no help was ordered:

"(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation." 

I have a feeling that the idea of sitting on our hands while allowing an attack to proceed until we know "what's taking place" would surprise most Marines, Rangers, and Special Forces.  But then, Jonah Goldberg has pretty well covered how utterly ridiculous this statement is...

But let's think about this for a moment... is this really Obama's doctrine?  Let people die while the administration and DOD struggle to get their glasses on straight?  Wait to order up a defense until we've got all the details on any attack?  If Obama's defense establishment was so parallelized by this Benghazi incident, what would they look like during a larger crisis?  No wonder they thought going after bin Laden was some kind of gutsy call!

October Surprise: Hurricane Sandy

Will Hurricane Sandy be Obama's "McCain and the financial crisis" moment... or Romney's?

In 2004, McCain, thinking that the financial crisis was a big deal (it was) and that being Presidential meant running around with your head cut off, suspended his campaign and rushed back to Washington to... basically do nothing.  Obama, by contrast, kept on keeping on with his attacks on McCain, and ultimately just parroted Congressional Dems on the crisis.

Real crises are difficult beasts for politicians in the middle of a major race, let alone right at the end.  My sense is that Romney's steady, focused approach (combined with Chris Christie's presence as Governor of the state about to be the coming ashore point of Sandy!) gives him a leg up on Obama.  Obama is already reportedly planning a visit to FEMA headquarters... I'm guessing this'll appear to be exactly what it is:  posturing by getting in the way of the people actually doing the work.

That said, both candidates better tread lightly.....

Which brings us to what people along the heavily populated east coast between Virginia and Long Island should do...  Sitting well in the heartland of America behind an entire mountain range, I can afford to prognosticate.  And the National Hurricane Center's website is great for prognosticating.

That said, my take is that the wind will definitely knock out lots of power.  The rain will result in plenty of local flooding.  But neither of these effects will be a huge deal.  The thing that I think deserves some looking at, is the NHC's storm surge predictions.  It's the storm surge that overwhelmed New Orleans, and it'll be the storm surge that will really inundate low-lying communities... e.g., like large portions of Manhattan.

Bloomberg has closed the subway, and ordered evacuations of the lowest areas of the NYC.  Only time will tell the ultimate outcome.  For the time being, if your on the east coast, get stuff to higher floors, get ready to be without power, and, if you're in a storm-surge susceptible area: get out.