9

Fearsome to the Enemies of Truth

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts recalls the SJW trolls who swarmed over his blog, alarmed at this conservative intruder into their happy hunting ground, when it was at Patheos:

 

 

 

This time, a post-battle review.  He nails Ms. Newman of Channel 4 for what she is.  She is a Marxist inspired post-modern leftist.  To that end, there is no truth, there’s merely the assumption of my measure of righteousness, anyone who disagrees must be a stereotype.  And it isn’t just Ms. Newman. That’s the biggest problem.  Peterson also calls out the fact that Ms. Newman’s tactics are all too common. While not unique to any time or place, her approach is pretty much the go-to approach in our millennial age; the post-Truth age where the point is to be affirmed in your awesomeness and contempt for non-conformers, rather than care a lick about getting to the truth.

As I listened to this, I thought of a glaring mistake I made at Patheos.  Early on, I assumed commentators commented in good faith.  Not sure why, since I’ve visited blogs for years. But I did assume this, I suppose because it was my blog and I thought I could direct the spirit of the comments.  No.  I was wrong.  Some did in good faith.  Many did not.  The best Troll of the bunch incarnated the postmodern leftist millennial age and all its problems that we see with Ms. Newman.

Early on I missed that and tried to engage in the spirit of mature discourse.  Which led to endless comments of nothing, strings of pointlessness that ended up chasing readers away (by the end, some told me exactly who it was that they dreaded seeing on a comments thread).  The wag would use any tactic imaginable – deflection, inconsistency, arrogance, subtle insult, pointless rabbit chasing, insinuation, you name a method of obfuscation – to do nothing other than win, and feel intellectually superior.  Any attempts to correct the situation?  More accusations, name calling or insults.

Which is why his approach reminded me of Ms. Newman, and much of the postmodern, millennial approach to debate.  There was no attempt to get to the point, discover the truth, find an answer, or discover a solution.  There was no real desire to understand my point – something I missed for too long.  The point was keeping the individual tripped up as long as possible to feel validated and superior. Truth, and reality were completely irrelevant. 

When engaging with the Marxist inspired postmodern millennial Left, it might be worth remembering this sad and ugly fact.  We don’t engage with people seeking Truth.  We engage with people who have one agenda and one agenda only – the eradication of anything that challenges their own superior view of themselves and their latest convenient values.

The fact that mainline outlets are taking notice and making with the slick ‘he’s obviously evil, he’s not liberal’ headlines, is all I need to know to understand how dangerously on the edge we are. Dangerous because it’s not just people who need validation on blogs, but actual jouranlism and even our very educational institutions that are in on the act.  Here, the Chronicle of Higher Education takes on Peterson.  It’s more subtle than Ms. Newman, but the obvious suggestions and hints are there.  Slate, of course, cuts right to the chase and in typical *Yawn* form, labels Peterson an Alt-Right hero.  Alt-Right is quickly becoming ‘excuse to root for the extermination of those who don’t conform’, rather than a descriptive label.

All of which reminded me of the Patheos Trolls, Ms. Newman, progressive millennials, and why we must stop fooling ourselves about compromising with a movement of tyranny, oppression, violence and wickedness resting on lies and calumny and rejection of Truth as its primary tactic.  It’s not just on Patheos or Channel 4.  Increasingly, it is the millennial Left in a nutshell.

Go here to comment.  One of my favorite scenes from the movie Becket:

I have always been struck by the words after the mitre is placed on Becket that:   “he may appear fearsome to the enemies of Truth.”  With most Leftists we are dealing with people who do not believe there is such a thing as truth, which explains a lot when you think about it.

 

50

How the Left Still Hates Maggie Thatcher

His Holiness Pope Francis was saddened to learn of the death of Baroness Margaret Thatcher.  He recalls with appreciation the Christian values which underpinned her commitment to public service and to the promotion of freedom among the family of nations.  Entrusting her soul to the mercy of God, and assuring her family and the British people of a remembrance in his prayers, the Holy Father invokes upon all whose lives she touched God’s abundant blessings.
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone
Secretary of State

The gracelessness and blind hatred that governs much of the Left was put on full display with the death of Margaret Thatcher, the greatest prime minister Britain has had since World War 2, with organized street demonstrations “celebrating” her passing.

Thatcher, who personified the phrase “true grit”, I think would have welcomed their hate as the finest tribute to her work.  She opposed the Left and its goal of an ever expanding state with all the wit, courage and eloquence she could muster, and she had a considerable store of all three qualities.  This accolade from Milton Friedman in 1979 explains just what an extraordinary politician Thatcher was:

We have become so accustomed to politicians making extravagant campaign promises and then  forgetting about them once elected that the first major act of Margaret Thatcher’s government— the budget unveiled on June 12—was a surprise. It did precisely what she had promised to do.

Margaret Thatcher campaigned on a platform of reversing the trend toward an ever more  intrusive government—a trend that had carried government spending in Great Britain to  somewhere between 50 per cent and 60 per cent of the nation’s income. Ever since the end of  World War II, both Labor and Tory governments have added to government-provided social  services as well as to government-owned and -operated industry. Foreign-exchange transactions  have been rigidly controlled. Taxes have been punitive, yet have not yielded enough to meet  costs. Excessive money created to finance deficits sparked an inflation that hit a rate of over 30  per cent a year in mid-1975. Only recently was inflation brought down to the neighborhood of 10  per cent, and it is once again on the rise.

Most important of all, the persistent move to a centralized and collectivist economy produced  economic stagnation. Before World War II, the British citizen enjoyed a real income that  averaged close to twice that of the Frenchman or German. Today, the ratio is nearly reversed.  The Frenchman or German enjoys a real income close to twice that of the ordinary Briton.

Margaret Thatcher declared in no uncertain terms that the long British experiment was a failure.  She urged greater reliance on private enterprise and on market incentives. She promised to  reduce the fraction of the people’s income that government spends on their behalf, and to cut  sharply government control over the lives of British citizens. Her government’s budget is a major first step. It reduces the top marginal tax rate on so-called  “earned” income from 83 per cent to 60 per cent, on “unearned” income from a confiscatory 98  per cent to 75 per cent. At the same time, it raises the level of income exempt from income tax  and cuts the bottom rate from 33 per cent to 30 per cent. It proposes to cut government spending  significantly, to sell some of the government’s industrial holdings and to promote the sale of  government-owned housing units to their occupants. It loosens foreign-exchange controls  substantially as a first step toward their elimination.

One retrograde step, in my opinion, is an increase in indirect taxes—the British general sales  taxes, or VAT. This increase, which partly offsets the decrease in direct taxes, combined with  lower spending will reduce government borrowing, facilitating a restrained monetary policy and  releasing funds for private investment. The purpose is admirable. However, once taxes are  imposed, it is hard to cut them. From the long-run point of view, it seems to me preferable to  resort to a temporarily higher level of borrowing rather than to a possibly permanently higher level of indirect taxes.

I would also have preferred to see exchange controls eliminated completely rather than by  degrees. The controls serve no constructive purpose. Eliminating them gradually only prolongs  the harm and preserves a mischievous bureaucracy.

But these are quibbles. I salute Margaret Thatcher and her government for their courage and  wisdom in moving firmly and promptly to cut Britain’s bureaucratic straitjacket. Britain has  enormous latent strength—in human capacities, industrial traditions, financial institutions, social  stability. If these can be released from bondage, if incentive can be restored, Britain could once  again become a vibrant, dynamic, increasingly productive economy. Continue Reading

22

Of Special People and Common Idiots

Hattip to Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal. With one of my sons being autistic, it is little surprise that one of my favorite charities is Special Olympics.  It allows people who too often spend much of life on the sidelines  to compete as athletes and to be admired for what they can accomplish in overcoming the handicaps that life has dealt them.  The whole Special Olympics program is magnificent for special people and their parents, relatives and friends.  One would think that such an organization would be respected by all.  I guess not. Continue Reading