FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #49: “The ‘tolerant’ are intolerant.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 18th, 2011

Liberals Benefit most from a Liberal Agenda

People on the left claim to be more tolerant than those on the right.  Live and let live, they say.  But they don’t really mean that.  For they are very intolerant of anyone who thinks differently than they do.

We’re talking about the far left.  The liberals.  That 20% of the population.  Which excludes a large percentage of Democrats.  And moderates and independents.  We’re talking college professors, public school teachers, the liberal media, the Hollywood elite, public sector unions, liberal politicians, etc.  People who have an air of superiority about them.  Who think they’re better than most people.  And who don’t care to hear any contrary views or opinions.  Because if they disagree with them, those views and opinions are just wrong.

For the ruling elite is always right.  And that’s who they think they are.  Elite.  And they rule.  Or try to.  Either in Congress through legislation.  Or by shaping opinion.  In the elite liberal media.  In our public schools where they shape the minds of our young children (to be good stewards of the planet, to trust government and not private business, that Americans stole the land from the indigenous people, that America was built on slavery and greed, etc.).  In our colleges where they continue and add to the work of the public schools (that we oppress women, that we’re a racist society, that Marxism is good while capitalism is bad, etc.).  In the entertainment world (actors, musicians, etc.) that gives a loud voice to this minority opinion.  In the public sector that grows bigger and consumes ever more of our tax dollars in exchange for support of the liberal agenda.  Etc.

It’s a small community.  Where they take care of each other.  They all have a vested interest in advancing the liberal agenda.  Because they live better than the average American.  At the expense of the average American (through high taxes, tuition, union contracts, etc.). 

Getting the People to Vote you into the Privileged Elite

So we have a minority group enjoying a privileged lifestyle.  Far better than the people paying to support that lifestyle can ever imagine.   In times past, the ruling elite used the power of the state to oppress the masses.  To get the money from them to support those privileged lifestyles.  While keeping them living in fear.  So the oppressed didn’t band together to overthrow the ruling elite.

It’s an effective formula.  And it has worked.  For awhile.  For some.  They may enjoy a few years.  Or a decade.  Or two.  A century.  Until they get overthrown by the masses.  Like the French did in 1789 (the French Revolution).  Or like the Russians did in 1917 (the February Revolution and the October Revolution).  These got pretty ugly.  A lot of people died.  Including the royal sovereigns. 

That’s the downside of absolute power.  You really piss off the people you oppress.  And pissed off people tend to revolt.  Thankfully, in a democracy, you don’t have to worry about that.  You can live the privileged life.  Without physically oppressing them.  You just have to get the people to vote for you.  And you do that by promising them free stuff.  And by demonizing your opponents.

Political Correctness helps to Limit Political Dissent

It’s called divide and conquer.  When you go up against a larger enemy, you try to divide that enemy and attack smaller parts of the enemy.  Because there is no way you can win going head to head.  The liberals, that 20%, cannot go up against the other 80% with any hopes of winning.  So they pick off parts of the 80% and attack them.

Their weapon of choice?  Political correctness.  Today you have to be very careful of what you say.  And how you say what you say.  Because if you don’t you can offend someone.  This helps to limit political dissent.  Because dissenters may say something politically incorrect.  And no one wants that.  Because they tell us in our public schools that that is wrong.  In college, too.  And in the media.  And on TV.  In the movies.  Etc.

And you can use political correctness to demonize your opponents.  If you oppose affirmative action you’re racist.  If you oppose immigration reform, you’re racist.  If you oppose welfare reform, you’re cruel and indifferent to the sufferings of the poor.  If you oppose gay marriage you’re a homophobe.  If you oppose gun control you’re a redneck Second Amendment nut (somehow that’s politically correct to say).  If you oppose Big Government you’re a tool of the special interests and Big Business.  And so on.  If you oppose any part of their agenda, there’s just something wrong with you.  Because you disagree with the enlightened people (that 20% of the population).  And because we see so many people admire and respect these enlightened people (thanks to our schooling, the media, Hollywood, etc.) we should want to be like them.  So people admire and respect us, too.

Divide and Conquer the Single Issue People

Those on the left, that 20%, are very tolerant of what you say or do.  As long as it’s what they say or do.  Because if you think and act like they do, they can maintain their privileged life.  If you disagree with them, then you threaten their privileged life.  You could vote liberals out of office.  You could set performance standards for public school teachers.  You could reduce the power of public sector unions.  You start doing these things and the next thing you know these liberals will have to get real jobs.  And they ain’t having none of that.

So they divide and conquer.  They support gay marriage and call you a homophobe because of your ‘intolerance’ of the gay lifestyle.  So the gays and lesbians support liberals.  They support abortion and call you a religious extremist because of your ‘intolerance’ of women having choice.  So a lot of people who enjoy consequence-free sex support liberals.  (And a lot of women who want to keep the right to choose just in case.)   They want to decriminalize drugs and call you a fascist for your ‘intolerance’ of people being free to put whatever they want into their bodies.  So the potheads and other recreational drug users support liberals.  (Of course, these same liberals will tell you NOT to eat a Big Mac or drink a Coke because they’re just not healthy for you.  Unlike heroin or cocaine.  Apparently.)   They support affirmative action and call you a racist because of your ‘intolerance’ of minorities.  So a lot of minorities support liberals.  And so on.

It adds up.  Get enough of these single issue people and you can maintain your power base.  So they are very tolerant of these people’s views and opinions.  And very intolerant of anyone opposing them.  They do this to persuade as many of the 80% that oppose their liberal agenda to support them.  So this minority of the population can continue to live a privileged life.  At our expense.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Incivility is NOT to Blame for Jared Loughner’s Arizona Shooting Rampage. But the Left still Blames It.

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 14th, 2011

The Uncivil Calling the Civil Uncivil

Civility.  Civility.  Civility.  That’s all we hear.  That we must be more civil.  Too much partisanship in the country.  We need to fight less.  And work together more.  Of course, the people saying this just took a shellacking at the 2010 midterm elections.  But they sure were singing a different song before that shellacking.

Civility?  Please.  Was wishing Rush Limbaugh dead civil?  Was wishing Sarah Palin dead civil?  Was making a movie based on a ‘what if’ assassination of George W. Bush civil?  Was wishing Dick Cheney dead civil?  Was wishing Sean Hannity dead civil?  Was throwing a pie at Ann Coulter civil?  Was saying you’d have sex with Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham and Elisabeth Hasselbeck because they’re hot even though you hate them civil?  Was dropping a crucifix in a glass of urine and calling it art civil?  I could go on.  But that should suffice to make the point.

Is this truly a cry for civility?  Or simply a way to neuter the opposition’s power?  By calling political dissent uncivil?  Now that they have lost their power?  My, how things change.  Once upon time it was patriotic to debate and disagree.  Of course, that’s only when the ‘wrong people’ were in power.  Apparently.

This Nutcase came from the Left

The shooting rampage in Arizona showed the consequences of the lack of civility (i.e., when conservatives debate and disagree).  At least, so thought those on the left.  Until some of the facts started coming out.  Turns out that the shooter was more of a leftist than a rightwing radical.  That’s right, this Nutcase came from the Left.

He didn’t listen to talk radio.  Didn’t follow Sarah Palin.  Rush Limbaugh.  Sean Hannity.  Glenn Beck.  Or anyone on the Right.  In fact, one of his favorite books was the Communist Manifesto.  Which is not a conservative manifesto.  And he was a conspiracy nut.  One of his favorite films was Zeitgeist: The Movie.  A film citing conspiracy theories about Christ (He was just a myth), the 9/11 attacks, bankers manipulating the international monetary system, etc.  And these are, of course, theories held by people on the Left.  It’s pretty clear that if anyone incited Jared Loughner with vitriolic rhetoric, it was those on the left.

Doesn’t matter.  Still the cry for civility rings out.  Even though a lack of civility clearly didn’t prompt Loughner to do anything.  It was his insanity that did.  Even so, we still need to be civil.  And not debate or disagree.  With the liberal left.  Because that incivility could create a Jared Loughner.  Even though it didn’t here.

Forget the Paranoid Schizophrenia.  Focus on the Vitriolic Political Debate.

The Arizona shooter was oblivious to all the incivility around him.  It was the paranoid schizophrenia rattling around his head driving him.  Not all that vitriolic political debate that is supposedly ruining our nation.  Still, it is a time to reflect.  To step back and take a look at ourselves and say, “Hey.  We can be better.”  Or so David Brooks writes about in the New York Times (see Tree of Failure posted 1/13/2011).

But over the past few decades, people have lost a sense of their own sinfulness. Children are raised amid a chorus of applause. Politics has become less about institutional restraint and more about giving voters whatever they want at that second. Joe DiMaggio didn’t ostentatiously admire his own home runs, but now athletes routinely celebrate themselves as part of the self-branding process.

So, of course, you get narcissists who believe they or members of their party possess direct access to the truth. Of course you get people who prefer monologue to dialogue. Of course you get people who detest politics because it frustrates their ability to get 100 percent of what they want. Of course you get people who gravitate toward the like-minded and loathe their political opponents. They feel no need for balance and correction.

Brooks makes some good points.  And the Left should listen to them.  Because he’s talking about them.  When George W. Bush was president Hillary Clinton said it was patriotic to debate and disagree.  Now she says that this leads to domestic terrorism.  No doubt she and her fellow Democrats believe they alone speak the truth.  And that they have no need for balance or correction.  Because they are always right and loathe their political opponents.  Especially when they get shellacked in the midterm elections.

They’re Civil in North Korea.  And Oppressed

Holding hands and singing kum bay ya isn’t going to change anything.  Because we don’t agree.  If everyone in the country agreed it wouldn’t be the United States.  It would be North Korea.  And they’re very civil there.  Especially when it comes to the government that’s oppressing them.  But I don’t think we want that kind of civility here.

Debate is good.  Dissent is good.  It prevents the rise of tyrants.  That’s why Americans can debate and disagree.  That process has prevented the rise of tyrants.  And we shouldn’t be quick to dismiss that process.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mass Murder and a Fallen Democrat Provide an Opportunity to Reenact the Fairness Doctrine

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 10th, 2011

The Left wants a Fairness Doctrine to Stifle Political Dissent

And here it is.  The big one.  What the Left really wants.  The ability to censor the opposing viewpoint so they can easily advance their agenda without political dissent.  You know what it is.  It’s called the Fairness Doctrine.  To stifle that vitriol we call free speech.  Our First Amendment right.  Which some are saying caused the Arizona Shooting rampage (see Clyburn: Words can be danger by Yvonne Wenger posted 1/10/2011 on The Post and Courier).

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in Congress, said Sunday the deadly shooting in Arizona should get the country thinking about what’s acceptable to say publicly and when people should keep their mouths shut.

Clyburn said he thinks vitriol in public discourse led to a 22-year-old suspect opening fire Saturday at an event Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords held for her constituents in Tucson, Ariz. Six people were killed and 14 others were injured, including Giffords.

Clyburn thinks wrong.  From what we’re learning, it sounds like the shooter wasn’t even aware of reality let alone the public discourse.  Of course, you wouldn’t know this if you rush to some kind of judgment.  Or are just using the tragedy to advance a stalled agenda.

The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use ‘better judgment.’

The Fairness Doctrine.  Statutory censorship.  You see, back then there were only three networks and PBS.  And the Fairness Doctrine was to keep them fair and balanced.  If they aired a story favoring one viewpoint, they then had to give time for the opposing viewpoint.  Or face a fine.  Sounds fair, doesn’t it?  But it’s just a fancy way to enact state censorship.

Here’s how.  Who’s to determine what programming meets the balancing requirement of the Fairness Doctrine?  The FCC.  Which is part of the executive branch of the government.  So the president had the power to determine what was appropriate speech.  And what wasn’t.  That’s a lot of power.  And JFK and LBJ put that power to good uses.  They used it to harass their political enemies.  Made it so costly to air a point of view opposing theirs that stations would refuse to air them.  It really stifled political dissent.  And made it a lot easier to pass the Great Society legislation.

Ah, yes, those were the good old days.  When you didn’t have all that messiness we call free speech.  The 1960s and 1970s were Big Government decades.  Times were good for the liberal left.  That is until Ronald Reagan came along to spoil everything.  For it was Reagan who repealed the Fairness Doctrine.  And ever since the Left has wanted it back.

The Left wants a Fairness Doctrine to Hush Rush

The party really ended in the 1980s.  Not only did they lose their beloved doctrine, but there was a new kid on the block.  Talk radio.  It was bad enough not to have ‘fairness’ as they saw fairness, but now there was more than three networks and PBS.  There was content all over the place that they couldn’t control.  And it really pissed them off.  Especially a guy by the name of Rush Limbaugh.  He was such a thorn in Bill Clinton’s side that some called the Fairness Doctrine the ‘Hush Rush’ bill. 

You have to remember how Bill Clinton won the election.  He won with one of the lowest percentages of the popular vote.  Ross Perot was a third-party candidate that drained votes away from both candidates.  But, more importantly, he turned the election into a media circus.  Everyone was following what wacky thing he would say or do next that few paid attention to Clinton’s less than spotless past.  And people were spitting mad about George H.W. Bush‘s broken pledge not to raise taxes.  You take these two things away and Bush the elder would have been a two-term president.  So Clinton wasn’t very popular with the people to begin with. 

During the Nineties, some 20 million people a week were tuning in to listen to Rush.  Why was he so popular?  For the simple reason that he held the same views as some 20 million people in the country.  And these people were tired of the media bias.  For them Rush was a breath of fresh air.  His radio show was the only place this huge mass of people could go and not hear the Democrat spin on everything.  And this was a real threat to the Left.  They blamed him for their failure to nationalize health care.  And the Left blamed Rush for Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, the blue dress, etc.  Hillary Clinton called the Lewinsky affair a vast right-wing conspiracy.  And if it wasn’t for Rush and talk radio, those things would have remained hidden. So you can see why they hated him.

The Shooting of a Democrat Allows the Left to Attack Conservatives

It was bad for Bill Clinton.  But President Obama has it even worse.  The FOX News channel has blown away the cable competition.  The Internet has come of age.  There’s more content out there than ever before.  And the old guard (the three networks, PBS and the liberal newspapers) are losing more and more of their influence.  In other words, they need the Fairness Doctrine like never before.  Because there is way too much free speech for their liking.  It’s just not a good time if you’re trying to be devious.

So when a mass murder comes along and a Democrat is shot in the head, they pounce.  Representative Clyburn uses this tragedy to advance the Fairness Doctrine.  Even though he knew little at the time.  But that didn’t stop him.  They have no evidence, but the Left has blamed the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, FOX News, and anyone else who has ever held a contrary viewpoint.

So, what, then, motivated this killer in Arizona? 

Who is Jared Loughner

Well, let’s hear what a close friend of the shooter, Jared Loughner, says.  Bryce Tierney knew him since high school.  Even went to college with him.  And from what he says, Loughner doesn’t sound like he was influenced by anyone on the right (see Exclusive: Loughner Friend Explains Alleged Gunman’s Grudge Against Giffords by Nick Baumann posted 1/10/2011 on Mother Jones).

Tierney tells Mother Jones in an exclusive interview that Loughner held a years-long grudge against Giffords and had repeatedly derided her as a “fake.” Loughner’s animus toward Giffords intensified after he attended one of her campaign events and she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer a question he had posed, Tierney says. He also describes Loughner as being obsessed with “lucid dreaming”—that is, the idea that conscious dreams are an alternative reality that a person can inhabit and control—and says Loughner became “more interested in this world than our reality.” Tierney adds, “I saw his dream journal once. That’s the golden piece of evidence. You want to know what goes on in Jared Loughner’s mind, there’s a dream journal that will tell you everything…”

But the thing I remember most is just that question. I don’t remember him stalking her or anything.” Tierney notes that Loughner did not display any specific political or ideological bent: “It wasn’t like he was in a certain party or went to rallies…It’s not like he’d go on political rants.”  But Loughner did, according to Tierney, believe that government is “fucking us over.” He never heard Loughner vent about the perils of “currency,” as Loughner did on one YouTube video he created… 

Once, Tierney recalls, Loughner told him, “I’m pretty sure I’ve come to the conclusion that words mean nothing.” Loughner would also tell Tierney and his friends that life “means nothing…”

Tierney believes that Loughner was very interested in pushing people’s buttons—and that may have been why he listed Hitler’s Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books on his YouTube page. (Loughner’s mom is Jewish, according to Tierney.) Loughner sometimes approached strangers and would say “weird” things, Tierney recalls. “He would do it because he thought people were below him and he knew they wouldn’t know what he was talking about.”

In college, Loughner became increasingly intrigued with “lucid dreaming,” and he grew convinced that he could control his dreams, according to Tierney. In a series of rambling videos posted to his YouTube page, dreams are a frequent topic. In a video posted on December 15, Loughner writes, “My favorite activity is conscience dreaming: the greatest inspiration for my political business information. Some of you don’t dream—sadly.” In another video, he writes, “The population of dreamers in the United States of America is less than 5%!” Later in the same video he says,  “I’m a sleepwalker—who turns off the alarm clock.”

Loughner believed that dreams could be a sort of alternative, Matrix-style reality, and “that when you realize you’re dreaming, you can do anything, you can create anything,” Tierney says. Loughner started his “dream journal” in an attempt to take more control of his dreams, his friend notes, and he kept this journal for over a year…

After Loughner apparently gave up drugs and booze, “his theories got worse,” Tierney says. “After he quit, he was just off the wall.” And Loughner started to drift away from his group of friends about a year ago. By early 2010, dreaming had become Loughner’s “waking life, his reality,” Tierney says. “He sort of drifted off, didn’t really care about hanging out with friends. He’d be sleeping a lot.” Loughner’s alternate reality was attractive, Tierney says. “He figured out he could fly.” Loughner, according to Tierney, told his friends, “I’m so into it because I can create things and fly. I’m everything I’m not in this world.”

But in this world, Loughner seemed ticked off by what he believed to be a pervasive authoritarianism. “The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar,” he wrote in one YouTube video. In another, Loughner complains that when he tried to join the military, he was handed a “mini-Bible.” That upset him: “I didn’t write a belief on my Army application and the recruiter wrote on the application: None,” he wrote on YouTube. In messages on MySpace last month, Loughner declared, “I’ll see you on National T.v.! This is foreshadow.” He also noted on the website, “I don’t feel good: I’m ready to kill a police officer! I can say it…”

Since hearing of the rampage, Tierney has been trying to figure out why Loughner did what he allegedly did. “More chaos, maybe,” he says. “I think the reason he did it was mainly to just promote chaos. He wanted the media to freak out about this whole thing. He wanted exactly what’s happening. He wants all of that.” Tierney thinks that Loughner’s mindset was like the Joker in the most recent Batman movie: “He fucks things up to fuck shit up, there’s no rhyme or reason, he wants to watch the world burn. He probably wanted to take everyone out of their monotonous lives: ‘Another Saturday, going to go get groceries’—to take people out of these norms that he thought society had trapped us in.”

It wasn’t Vitriol, it was Insanity

Well, he doesn’t sound like a Tea Party guy.  Or a fan of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman or FOX News.  He doesn’t sound like a religious guy.  He may have been anti-Semitic.  He felt superior to those around him.  He liked to dream and spend a lot of time in his imagination.  He may have liked the movie The Matrix.  Maybe even thought he was in a ‘Matrix‘ fantasyland.  He did drugs and drank at one time.  When he went sober, though, he seemed to go deeper into his imagination.  He was pretty certain that the government was controlling people with an insidious form of grammar.  And he wasn’t a fan of authority figures and thought killing a cop would cheer him up.

I don’t know, maybe it’s me, but I wouldn’t call this guy a conservative.  And I don’t think there was any vitriol egging him on.  I doubt any vitriol could compete with what was going on in his imagination.  This guy had serious mental issues.  He was unstable.  And dangerous.  And the only reason why he shot Representative Giffords is because she had the misfortune of being his representative.

So Representative Clyburn, and the far left, are wrong.  No one on the right is responsible for this tragedy in Arizona.  The shooter was just a nutcase.  Little solace for the victims’ families.  But it does say that we don’t need a Fairness Doctrine.  For it would NOT have altered what happened in Tucson, Arizona, this past Saturday.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,