I think so, Brain … some people learn for others’ mistakes, and some people are great teachers.
“What’s your comfort number, Lefties?” asks The Phantom over at The Phantom Soapbox. Even before taking office, She Guevara has already threatened the President’s son with a subpoena because of an effective meme on Twitter, and Eric Swalwell has expressed a willingness to use nuclear weapons to enforce gun control. Both may be joking or speaking hyperbolically, but they tipped their hands. It’s clear that these socialists are willing to use government power to force through the social changes they want.
P. J. O’Rourke once suggested that we should not favor any government program that we were not willing to kill our own grandmother for. He reasoned that if she didn’t pay her taxes to support the program, the government would send an agent with a gun to collect the taxes and that further resistance could be fatal, so we only should support a government program if we really supported such an outcome. The Phantom wonders how many of our grandmothers these socialists are willing to sacrifice—
So there’s really only one question worth asking DemocRats in the USA and Liberals here: how many people are you willing to throw out of work to get your socialist plan enacted? How many will you imprison to enforce your regulation? How many senior citizens are you willing to freeze to death for your ecological fuel tax? How many resisters will you kill? Hmm?
The Communist’s answer was 100 million in the 20th Century. The entire nation of Canada, four times over, died for the myth of the Worker’s Paradise. The Chinese Communists are still at it.
Read the whole thing.
Video Credit: NASA
One of the consistent themes put forward by Team Kimberlin is that they are the victims of false narratives and that their defeats in court have been the result of unfair treatment by judges or cheating by the opposing parties. The Legal LULZ Du Jour from three years ago dealt with one example of such a silly claim. Note: The “Lynn” referred to in the first tweet is a woman who wound up getting a restraining order against Bill Schmalfeldt.
* * * * *
Yeah, I remember now. Judge Kramer dismissed the suit against the out-of-state defendants because The Dreadful Pro-Se Schmalfeldt had failed to serve them, and she dismissed the case against me because I was being sued in the wrong county. Now, I’m pretty sure that I told the judge that I lived in Carroll County and didn’t work in Howard County, and I didn’t lie about that.
Perhaps I’m not the one with a progressive brain disorder.
* * * * *
The Truth is not Team Kimberlin’s friend.
Oh, and the Cabin Boy™ sued me once more. I was a defendant in LOLsuit VIII: Avoiding Contact. That case was dismissed against me because of the court’s lack of personal jurisdiction, i.e., Schmalfeldt sued me in the wrong court. Again.
Come to think of it, the state law claims that The
Dread Deadbeat Pro-Se Kimberlin tried to bring against me in the RICO Madness and RICO 2: Electric Boogaloo LOLsuits were also dismissed because the U. S. District Court lacked jurisdiction. The RICO Retread LOLsuit could have been dismissed in state court for improper venue, but the judge dismissed it for failure to state a claim in order for the dismissal to be with prejudice.
Incompetent cases filed in the wrong courts. It’s almost as if there’s a pattern here.
Truth draws strength from itself and not from the number of votes in its favour.
I think so, Brain … but shouldn’t we be able to get Cyrillic alphabet soup in Russia?
Andrew Sullivan has a post over at NYMag titled America’s New Religions. Sullivan points out that the decline of Christianity in America hasn’t resulted in a decline in religion. Rather, he sees new cults arising that attempt to replace spirituality with politics. He sees different forms of politics emerging on the Left and Right that seek to fill the hole in the lives of people who have abandoned Christianity.
Sullivan refers to the new religion on the Left as “the Great Awokening.”
Like early modern Christians, they punish heresy by banishing sinners from society or coercing them to public demonstrations of shame, and provide an avenue for redemption in the form of a thorough public confession of sin. “Social justice” theory requires the admission of white privilege in ways that are strikingly like the admission of original sin. A Christian is born again; an activist gets woke. To the belief in human progress unfolding through history — itself a remnant of Christian eschatology — it adds the Leninist twist of a cadre of heroes who jump-start the revolution.
I note that American Progressivism has some of its roots in Christianity. During the later half of the 19th century, a fairly broad segment of Christians held a Post-Millenial view of eschatology. That is, they believed that the world was getting better because of human progress and that if they worked harder to increase the rate of progress, the world would sooner be fit for Christ’s second coming. Some of these people believed they had a duty to enforce what they saw as good behavior on their neighbors, and that view fueled such political activity by Christian Progressives as the Prohibition Movement. The idea that the world was getting better fell on hard times in the trenches of the First World War, and the unintended consequences of experiments in social control such as Prohibition further discredited that point of view. These failures led many of those busybodies away from Christianity to other belief systems that provided new rationales for their desire to control others. Heresies resulted from attempts to merge Marxism with the Gospel. Many have ended up choosing Marx over Jesus.
But back to Sullivan’s article. He sees that corrosive forces have also attacked Christianity from the Right, creating mirror image cults to those filled by Progressives.
And so we’re mistaken if we believe that the collapse of Christianity in America has led to a decline in religion. It has merely led to religious impulses being expressed by political cults. Like almost all new cultish impulses, they see no boundary between politics and their religion. And both cults really do minimize the importance of the individual in favor of either the oppressed group or the leader.
And this is how they threaten liberal democracy. They do not believe in the primacy of the individual, they believe the ends justify the means, they do not allow for doubt or reason, and their religious politics can brook no compromise. They demonstrate, to my mind, how profoundly liberal democracy has actually depended on the complement of a tolerant Christianity to sustain itself — as many earlier liberals (Tocqueville, for example) understood.
It is Christianity that came to champion the individual conscience against the collective, which paved the way for individual rights. It is in Christianity that the seeds of Western religious toleration were first sown. Christianity is the only monotheism that seeks no sway over Caesar, that is content with the ultimate truth over the immediate satisfaction of power. It was Christianity that gave us successive social movements, which enabled more people to be included in the liberal project, thus renewing it. It was on these foundations that liberalism was built, and it is by these foundations it has endured. The question we face in contemporary times is whether a political system built upon such a religion can endure when belief in that religion has become a shadow of its future self.
Read the whole thing.