The Democrat Party Hates America

[Immanuel Can]

The Leftists are busy breaking laws, ignoring laws, and corrupting the balance of power designed into the constitution.

Certainly seems true to me and worthy of conversation.

This goes back to the belief in the "dialectics" of History. Leftists believe that step one of progress is always busting the status quo -- no matter what it is, and no matter how useful it's proved in past. Anything that is status quo, or part of the existing institutional structure or tradtions of society is automatically bad, inhibiting and regressive, they think. So laws, the constitution, the balance of power...all are status quo features, and all need busting, so far as they are concerned.

They actually believe that if they bust things, then they don't have to establish anything positive in their place. History itself, the great god History, will take over and make what should be to happen. If you resist the movement of this History, you're "on the wrong side of History," to quote Obama. In fact, if you established something positive in the place of what you'd broken (say, for example, you substituted new laws or a new constitution), then that new set of laws or constitution would be the new status quo -- and hence, the next oppression, the next thing to need busting.

This is why they say that oppression is always "systemic", too. For them, what's oppressive is not any particular person, institution or tradition, but ALL of them! The "system" itself is the enemy. The status quo, whatever exists right now, is the thing to be fought and destroyed, regardless of its utility or even its admirability. For the dialectical materialist, the past is not a resource for anything good; it's just a massive pit of failed and oppressive practices. This is also why they hate the objective and academic study of history (the study of the past, not their pseudo-god: see the small "h"); for them, it's just a catalogue of fraudulent narratives aimed at justifying power and oppressing people. But History, their god, is progressive and good, a kind of "spiritual" force that takes things forward.

History will kill people. The Leftist theorists know this, and they do not care. History is a wasteful process, in which many...maybe even millions...will be sacrificed on the altar of Progress. Burn, beat, destroy, disassemble, deconstruct, criticize, problematize, hate, punch, break and destroy...all these are "progress-making" processes. And they believe themselves to be good and liberating people for practicing them.

The upshot is that you can't expect to find them wanting a United States of America to continue to exist. It's the status quo. They will deliberately bust it...economically, morally, socially, racially, militarily, and any other way they can.

[Gary Childress]

So, Gary, here is one way that should work, that should do away with wars. Make the instigator nation (or both warring parties) succumb to sanctions and embargoes. That should work, but it won’t in reality, because sanctions are never universally applied, and an embargo may be interpreted as an act of war.

There was an effort in the 60s to stop the war in Vietnam. It failed. There is no practical way to end war without an overpowering force (of war). You can wish it weren’t so but that’s just the reality of it.

What makes you think that wars can't be stopped through diplomacy instead of "overpowering force"?

whereas a war on war, perpetrated by a superior force, will end the war that’s intended to be ended.

I doubt war can end war. The "Great" War was not the "war to end all wars." The "2nd World War" was not the war to end all wars. Does it appear to anyone yet that war has not solved anything except to keep war alive? How long do we wish "war" to resonate in our consciousnesses and in our consciences?

[Gary Childress]

The Leftists are busy breaking laws, ignoring laws, and corrupting the balance of power designed into the constitution.

Certainly seems true to me and worthy of conversation.

This goes back to the belief in the "dialectics" of History. Leftists believe that step one of progress is always busting the status quo -- no matter what it is, and no matter how useful it's proved in past. Anything that is status quo, or part of the existing institutional structure or tradtions of society is automatically bad, inhibiting and regressive, they think. So laws, the constitution, the balance of power...all are status quo features, and all need busthing, so far as they are concerned.

They actually believe that if they bust things, then they don't have to establish anything positive in their place. History itself, the great god History, will take over and make what should be to happen. If you resist the movement of this History, you're "on the wrong side of History," to quote Obama. In fact, if you established something positive in the place of what you'd broken (say, for example, you substituted new laws or a new constitution), then that new set of laws or constitution would be the new status quo -- and hence, the next oppression, the next thing to need busting.

This is why they say that oppression is always "systemic", too. For them, what's oppressive is not any particular person, institution or tradition, but ALL of them! The "system" itself is the enemy. The status quo, whatever exists right now, is the thing to be fought and destroyed, regardless of its utility or even its admirability. For the dialectical materialist, the past is not a resource for anything good; it's just a massive pit of failed and oppressive practices. This is also why they hate the objective and academic study of history (the study of the past, not their pseudo-god: see the small "h"); for them, it's just a catalogue of fraudulent narratives aimed at justifying power and oppressing people. But History, their god, is progressive and good, a kind of "spiritual" force that takes things forward.

History will kill people. The Leftist theorists know this, and they do not care. History is a wasteful process, in which many...maybe even millions...will be sacrificed on the altar of Progress. Burn, beat, destroy, disassemble, deconstruct, criticize, problematize, hate, punch, break and destroy...all these are "progress-making" processes. And they believe themselves to be good and liberating people for practicing them.

The upshot is that you can't expect to find them wanting a United States of America to continue to exist. It's the status quo. They will deliberately bust it...economically, morally, socially, racially, militarily, and any other way they can.

Ugh... Where is the "right" in all this Mr. "leftists are the problem"? If we go to the "right", will that end the left? Will there be no more left if we go to the right?

[Immanuel Can]

Certainly seems true to me and worthy of conversation.

This goes back to the belief in the "dialectics" of History. Leftists believe that step one of progress is always busting the status quo -- no matter what it is, and no matter how useful it's proved in past. Anything that is status quo, or part of the existing institutional structure or tradtions of society is automatically bad, inhibiting and regressive, they think. So laws, the constitution, the balance of power...all are status quo features, and all need busthing, so far as they are concerned.

They actually believe that if they bust things, then they don't have to establish anything positive in their place. History itself, the great god History, will take over and make what should be to happen. If you resist the movement of this History, you're "on the wrong side of History," to quote Obama. In fact, if you established something positive in the place of what you'd broken (say, for example, you substituted new laws or a new constitution), then that new set of laws or constitution would be the new status quo -- and hence, the next oppression, the next thing to need busting.

This is why they say that oppression is always "systemic", too. For them, what's oppressive is not any particular person, institution or tradition, but ALL of them! The "system" itself is the enemy. The status quo, whatever exists right now, is the thing to be fought and destroyed, regardless of its utility or even its admirability. For the dialectical materialist, the past is not a resource for anything good; it's just a massive pit of failed and oppressive practices. This is also why they hate the objective and academic study of history (the study of the past, not their pseudo-god: see the small "h"); for them, it's just a catalogue of fraudulent narratives aimed at justifying power and oppressing people. But History, their god, is progressive and good, a kind of "spiritual" force that takes things forward.

History will kill people. The Leftist theorists know this, and they do not care. History is a wasteful process, in which many...maybe even millions...will be sacrificed on the altar of Progress. Burn, beat, destroy, disassemble, deconstruct, criticize, problematize, hate, punch, break and destroy...all these are "progress-making" processes. And they believe themselves to be good and liberating people for practicing them.

The upshot is that you can't expect to find them wanting a United States of America to continue to exist. It's the status quo. They will deliberately bust it...economically, morally, socially, racially, militarily, and any other way they can.

Ugh... Where is the "right" in all this Mr. "leftists are the problem"? If we go to the "right", will that end the left? Will there be no more left if we go to the right?

No, the right has its own problems. But they're not really the problem's we're facing today. The right is not eating America, at the moment.

One thing the conservatives have, that the Leftists do not, is a willingness to examine the past and retain resources and wisdom from it. That's because they don't have the great god History in mind, nor do they have a utopian project to aim at. Conservatism is a cautious creed, not a headlong one; it has a guarded respect for human civilization and for the past, and rather than breaking society it tends to aim at reforming it more gradually. Conservatives tend to be believers in things like free markets and maximizers of personal freedom instead of collective social projects. But if conservatism is going to be wise, it has to have more than that: it has to incorporate the thing that cures the fatal flaw in all Leftism -- a realistic assessment of human nature.

What I mean is that Leftists expect human nature to be good, or at least to be able to become good if the social conditions are properly arranged. And they always believe that Leftism itself has the right recipe for those social conditions. Conservatism does not have to believe that. It can accept that human nature is, if not automatically corrupt, at least seriously corruptible, and can place checks and balances to prevent that. That's why with a conservative, centrist approach, corruption will not be eliminated, but at least will be seriously impeded and can even sometimes be corrected. Conservatism "conserves" the good we've discovered, while trying to manage the future without having to prophesy any ideal future, or to overmanage the outcomes.

Leftism responds to that idea by denying that human beings are essentially corrupt at all; and thus it throws society madly into projects that just trust that human beings will always "do the right thing" or become magically motivated by "the public good." And that means that Leftism is always total capitulation to corruption, a giving in to the worst impulses in man, out of a blind ideology that says, "If I believe strongly enough in human perfectability, human beings will turn out to be perfect."

It turns out, though, that denial of reality is a terrible way to run a system.

[Gary Childress]

This goes back to the belief in the "dialectics" of History. Leftists believe that step one of progress is always busting the status quo -- no matter what it is, and no matter how useful it's proved in past. Anything that is status quo, or part of the existing institutional structure or tradtions of society is automatically bad, inhibiting and regressive, they think. So laws, the constitution, the balance of power...all are status quo features, and all need busthing, so far as they are concerned.

They actually believe that if they bust things, then they don't have to establish anything positive in their place. History itself, the great god History, will take over and make what should be to happen. If you resist the movement of this History, you're "on the wrong side of History," to quote Obama. In fact, if you established something positive in the place of what you'd broken (say, for example, you substituted new laws or a new constitution), then that new set of laws or constitution would be the new status quo -- and hence, the next oppression, the next thing to need busting.

This is why they say that oppression is always "systemic", too. For them, what's oppressive is not any particular person, institution or tradition, but ALL of them! The "system" itself is the enemy. The status quo, whatever exists right now, is the thing to be fought and destroyed, regardless of its utility or even its admirability. For the dialectical materialist, the past is not a resource for anything good; it's just a massive pit of failed and oppressive practices. This is also why they hate the objective and academic study of history (the study of the past, not their pseudo-god: see the small "h"); for them, it's just a catalogue of fraudulent narratives aimed at justifying power and oppressing people. But History, their god, is progressive and good, a kind of "spiritual" force that takes things forward.

History will kill people. The Leftist theorists know this, and they do not care. History is a wasteful process, in which many...maybe even millions...will be sacrificed on the altar of Progress. Burn, beat, destroy, disassemble, deconstruct, criticize, problematize, hate, punch, break and destroy...all these are "progress-making" processes. And they believe themselves to be good and liberating people for practicing them.

The upshot is that you can't expect to find them wanting a United States of America to continue to exist. It's the status quo. They will deliberately bust it...economically, morally, socially, racially, militarily, and any other way they can.

Ugh... Where is the "right" in all this Mr. "leftists are the problem"? If we go to the "right", will that end the left? Will there be no more left if we go to the right?

No, the right has its own problems. But they're not really the problem's we're facing today. The right is not eating America, at the moment.

One thing the conservatives have, that the Leftists do not, is a willingness to examine the past and retain resources and wisdom from it. That's because they don't have the great god History in mind, nor do they have a utopian project to aim at. Conservatism is a cautious creed, not a headlong one; it has a guarded respect for human civilization and for the past, and rather than breaking society it tends to aim at reforming it more gradually. Conservatives tend to be believers in things like free markets and maximizers of personal freedom instead of collective social projects. But if conservatism is going to be wise, it has to have more than that: it has to incorporate the thing that cures the fatal flaw in all Leftism -- a realistic assessment of human nature.

What I mean is that Leftists expect human nature to be good, or at least to be able to become good if the social conditions are properly arranged. And they always believe that Leftism itself has the right recipe for those social conditions. Conservatism does not have to believe that. It can accept that human nature is, if not automatically corrupt, at least seriously corruptible, and can place checks and balances to prevent that. That's why with a conservative, centrist approach, corruption will not be eliminated, but at least will be seriously impeded and can even sometimes be corrected. Conservatism "conserves" the good we've discovered, while trying to manage the future without having to prophesy any ideal future, or to overmanage the outcomes.

Leftism responds to that idea by denying that human beings are essentially corrupt at all; and thus it throws society madly into projects that just trust that human beings will always "do the right thing" or become magically motivated by "the public good." And that means that Leftism is always total capitulation to corruption, a giving in to the worst impulses in man, out of a blind ideology that says, "If I believe strongly enough in human perfectability, human beings will turn out to be perfect."

It turns out, though, that denial of reality is a terrible way to run a system.

Has the "right" been able to solve any of our problems more so than the left has? Would you like to remain at this intersection and work it out with your friends or would you like to move forward?

BTW: Right and Left were coined in the French Revolution and we all know the basics of the story behind that. However, that is something in the past. Do people in the "East" believe in a "right" and "left"? Does anyone know? I've heard that Buddhism grapples with dualism relatively better than Western religions do. Is there any truth to that Walker? Or why am I asking Walker?

HEY, is anyone from the EAST actually here who can chime in on this discussion so that we can stop getting the watered-down "Chuck Norris" version of Eastern mind and body disciplines? India, China, Japan, Indonesia? Anyone out there?

[Immanuel Can]

Ugh... Where is the "right" in all this Mr. "leftists are the problem"? If we go to the "right", will that end the left? Will there be no more left if we go to the right?

No, the right has its own problems. But they're not really the problem's we're facing today. The right is not eating America, at the moment.

One thing the conservatives have, that the Leftists do not, is a willingness to examine the past and retain resources and wisdom from it. That's because they don't have the great god History in mind, nor do they have a utopian project to aim at. Conservatism is a cautious creed, not a headlong one; it has a guarded respect for human civilization and for the past, and rather than breaking society it tends to aim at reforming it more gradually. Conservatives tend to be believers in things like free markets and maximizers of personal freedom instead of collective social projects. But if conservatism is going to be wise, it has to have more than that: it has to incorporate the thing that cures the fatal flaw in all Leftism -- a realistic assessment of human nature.

What I mean is that Leftists expect human nature to be good, or at least to be able to become good if the social conditions are properly arranged. And they always believe that Leftism itself has the right recipe for those social conditions. Conservatism does not have to believe that. It can accept that human nature is, if not automatically corrupt, at least seriously corruptible, and can place checks and balances to prevent that. That's why with a conservative, centrist approach, corruption will not be eliminated, but at least will be seriously impeded and can even sometimes be corrected. Conservatism "conserves" the good we've discovered, while trying to manage the future without having to prophesy any ideal future, or to overmanage the outcomes.

Leftism responds to that idea by denying that human beings are essentially corrupt at all; and thus it throws society madly into projects that just trust that human beings will always "do the right thing" or become magically motivated by "the public good." And that means that Leftism is always total capitulation to corruption, a giving in to the worst impulses in man, out of a blind ideology that says, "If I believe strongly enough in human perfectability, human beings will turn out to be perfect."

It turns out, though, that denial of reality is a terrible way to run a system.

Has the "right" been able to solve any of our problems more so than the left has?

No, but the problems and the corruption can be slowed by conservatism, and will only ever be accellerated by Leftism...and deliberately so, because Leftism aims to "maximize the contradictions" (their phrase) and produce violent overthrow and change. But the key factor, as I've pointed out, is that conservatism can incorporate a cautious view of human nature, whereas Leftism requires an absurdly polyannish view of human nature.

Trouble that comes slowly and predictably is easier to manage than trouble that comes fast and hard. Corruption that is expected can be hedged against; corruption that is not even believed in cannot be prevented at all.

BTW: Right and Left were coined in the French Revolution...

I know. But that's old school. We're not in the French Assembly today, and nobody uses the terms that way anymore.

Today, the talk is pretty much this way: as if "right" means something on the spectrum between Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism, and "left" refers to everything from the far side of Liberalism and weak communitarianism to Socialism and full-on Communism.

[Gary Childress]

No, the right has its own problems. But they're not really the problem's we're facing today. The right is not eating America, at the moment.

One thing the conservatives have, that the Leftists do not, is a willingness to examine the past and retain resources and wisdom from it. That's because they don't have the great god History in mind, nor do they have a utopian project to aim at. Conservatism is a cautious creed, not a headlong one; it has a guarded respect for human civilization and for the past, and rather than breaking society it tends to aim at reforming it more gradually. Conservatives tend to be believers in things like free markets and maximizers of personal freedom instead of collective social projects. But if conservatism is going to be wise, it has to have more than that: it has to incorporate the thing that cures the fatal flaw in all Leftism -- a realistic assessment of human nature.

What I mean is that Leftists expect human nature to be good, or at least to be able to become good if the social conditions are properly arranged. And they always believe that Leftism itself has the right recipe for those social conditions. Conservatism does not have to believe that. It can accept that human nature is, if not automatically corrupt, at least seriously corruptible, and can place checks and balances to prevent that. That's why with a conservative, centrist approach, corruption will not be eliminated, but at least will be seriously impeded and can even sometimes be corrected. Conservatism "conserves" the good we've discovered, while trying to manage the future without having to prophesy any ideal future, or to overmanage the outcomes.

Leftism responds to that idea by denying that human beings are essentially corrupt at all; and thus it throws society madly into projects that just trust that human beings will always "do the right thing" or become magically motivated by "the public good." And that means that Leftism is always total capitulation to corruption, a giving in to the worst impulses in man, out of a blind ideology that says, "If I believe strongly enough in human perfectability, human beings will turn out to be perfect."

It turns out, though, that denial of reality is a terrible way to run a system.

Has the "right" been able to solve any of our problems more so than the left has?

No, but the problems and the corruption can be slowed by conservatism, and will only ever be accellerated by Leftism...and deliberately so, because Leftism aims to "maximize the contradictions" (their phrase) and produce violent overthrow and change. But the key factor, as I've pointed out, is that conservatism can incorporate a cautious view of human nature, whereas Leftism requires an absurdly polyannish view of human nature.

Trouble that comes slowly and predictably is easier to manage than trouble that comes fast and hard. Corruption that is expected can be hedged against; corruption that is not even believed in cannot be prevented at all.

BTW: Right and Left were coined in the French Revolution...

I know. But that's old school. We're not in the French Assembly today, and nobody uses the terms that way anymore.

Today, the talk is pretty much this way: as if "right" means something on the spectrum between Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism, and "left" refers to everything from the far side of Liberalism and weak communitarianism to Socialism and full-on Communism.

OK. I think you're off track. Left goes with right. For example, your left shoe goes on the left foot and the right shoe goes on the right foot. Now you're talking about "conservatism". "Conservatism" usually goes with "liberalism". Again, those are terms used by WESTERN political philosophy. What we need is to get philosopers out there to resolve the "East"/"West" problem. There are many different religions out there. Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Are we going to find natives of those religions who can meet with "Western" philosophers to work on the problem of "East" vs. "West"?

[Gary Childress]

Oh, put Confucianism and Taoism in there too! I forgot about them! See how silent they have been? I didn't even think to name them. Where are the Chinese in this conversation?

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, put Confucianism and Taoism in there too! I forgot about them! See how silent they have been? I didn't even think to name them. Where are the Chinese in this conversation?

Umm...I think you've wandered out of politics and into religion there, Gary. Why would you expect Buddhists or Hindus to have an opinion about "left" and "right," anymore than about 18th Century French politics?

[Gary Childress]

Oh, put Confucianism and Taoism in there too! I forgot about them! See how silent they have been? I didn't even think to name them. Where are the Chinese in this conversation?

Umm...I think you've wandered out of politics and into religion there, Gary. Why would you expect Buddhists or Hindus to have an opinion about "left" and "right," anymore than about 18th Century French politics?

I see. So you still believe that we should work out the problem of "left vs. right" before we work on the problem of "East" vs. "West"? I suppose that's fair. You seem to be reluctant to leave 0AD, you have a lot of catching up to do my friend. HOWEVER, the good news is, I'll wait for you, at least until I'm dead. After that, you'll have to do it on your own.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, put Confucianism and Taoism in there too! I forgot about them! See how silent they have been? I didn't even think to name them. Where are the Chinese in this conversation?

Umm...I think you've wandered out of politics and into religion there, Gary. Why would you expect Buddhists or Hindus to have an opinion about "left" and "right," anymore than about 18th Century French politics?

I see. So you still believe that we should work out the problem of "left vs. right"

Have you been paying attention? I don't think the right is our current "problem." And I don't think there's a future for "Leftism," at least, not a happy one. But I'd be choosing a centrist option.

You might be too convinced there's just two sides, and everything's polarized, Gary. I was pointing out earlier that that's just wrong. The "T" position, remember?

[Gary Childress]

Umm...I think you've wandered out of politics and into religion there, Gary. Why would you expect Buddhists or Hindus to have an opinion about "left" and "right," anymore than about 18th Century French politics?

I see. So you still believe that we should work out the problem of "left vs. right"

Have you been paying attention? I don't think the right is our current "problem." And I don't think there's a future for "Leftism," at least, not a happy one. But I'd be choosing a centrist option.

You might be too convinced there's just two sides, and everything's polarized, Gary. I was pointing out earlier that that's just wrong. The "T" position, remember?

OK. So your wish is to be a Bible Scholar? Is that correct?

[Walker]

The Democrat Party Hates America

Yeah read Project 2025.

Trump and Desantis' fascist manifesto for the future of the United Reich of America, from which they have frwn inspiration from "Man in the HIgh Castle" by P K Dick.

“Another leading influence in the Democrat Party is, of course, Sen. Bernie Sanders. Despite more recent efforts to mainstream himself, Sanders, who nearly won the Democrat Party nomination for president in 2020 and who issue papers have served as the revolutionary blueprint for the Biden administration, has spent his entire life as a Marxist activist. Although he is treated as a kind of elder statesman of the Democrat Party, his record in Marxist movements and activities, and in support of repressive communist regimes and causes, is so extensive, it would require far too many pages in this book to elaborate. That said, Sanders has praised genocidal communist regimes in the old Soviet Union, Cuba, Nicaragua, et., called for the government takeover of most industries, and offered “a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights” that could have been lifted straight from Joseph Stalin’s 1936 Soviet Constitution.”
- From the book.

[Gary Childress]

Or do you wish me to remain at the intersection until you and the "left" make friends? I suppose that's a fair option. Biden needs to get out of office. I just don't know who to replace him with at this point.

[Gary Childress]

Let me reword it differently just in case. Biden needs to get out of office (in my opinion). I just don't know who I should vote for as a replacement.