Quote note (#236)

In case anyone was unclear about the enemy end-game:

We may like to idealize the Constitution and our Founding Fathers as champions of freedom and equity under the law, but the ugly truth is that the United States was founded by the privileged for the privileged, and, as it is our duty as a society to prevent harm, so it is our obligation to tear down the structures that allow harm to be perpetuated. […] While this is only a solution for the problem of free speech in the United States, it would not be impossible for other nations to follow suit, or to enact their own censorship policies on their own merit, because this is not an issue that is limited to the United States. Because we now live in a globalized culture, we must acknowledge that our contemporary society must transcend national borders, so that we may establish equality for all humans, worldwide. The elimination of unsafe, undesirable thinking is a necessary step to establishing true justice in our time.

‘Must’ incontinence (XS emphasis) is usually a sign that you’re dealing with a frothing maniac who needs putting down like a rabid dog.


A note-worthy corrective, from an unlikely source.

April 4, 2016admin 26 Comments »


26 Responses to this entry

  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Intelligent move Admin.

    I of course am sworn enemy of anyone who would destroy Constitutional Government.

    And I’m not alone.


    Erebus Reply:

    Your Constitution is no safeguard of good or even sane government. See the 18th and 19th Amendments, for instance. Or this, for that matter. Or one could take a look at how progressive judges creatively interpret your precious Constitution. One could also note that many failed states, like South Africa and Argentina, have quite rigorous and much-admired Constitutions — whereas other very successful states, like [Victorian] England and modern Japan, either had no Constitution at all or are suffering under a foreign imposition. With all of this in mind, it should be obvious that “Constitutional government” has nothing to do with the fortunes of a nation — and that, when it’s associated with democracy, is almost certainly detrimental. Demographics and culture are everything.

    …And demographics and culture are precisely what’s under attack here, with nonsense like this: “Because we now live in a globalized culture, we must acknowledge that our contemporary society must transcend national borders.”


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Ah but Erebus it remains mine and ours nonetheless.

    There are no safeguards from men but other men, such as myself.

    Flaws in everything. Certainly something not defended of it’s own is poor defense.

    Then there is the matter of SWORN.

    But you already know all this… so do kindly poz off.


    Aeroguy Reply:

    Men like as yourself have taken arms against the Feds on many occasion through American history, the result always being the strengthening of Federal power and drifting left. If “us and ours” had the power then there even be any hesitation putting the opposition in it’s place, but it’s obvious who’s puts who in their place, war favors the powerful. The grocer with their sign in front knows who has power and signals loyalty accordingly, if they all had Gadsden flags in front then you might have had a point.

    The common man never ruled this country and never held power, even the Marxists know this much.

    American freedom has nothing to do with real freedom, it is uninhibited license, such that it tramples all real freedom which gets labeled as oppression. Americans are slaves who revere their chains, addicted to license they could never maintain without the patronage of a ruling elite. As natural slaves they are routinely treated as such but for the interventions of the Fed, the permissive master they adore, without whom they would be treated as they deserve.

    As the enfranchisement of low is expanded and real freedom is crushed yours has only recently felt the squeeze of being the middle in ongoing process of high-low vs middle. For the most part yours is and continues to be part of the low propping up bureaucratic state to inhibit the natural freedom of men better than yourself.

    It is the belief of leftists that natural slaves can be made free, this is folly, natural slaves are such because they are incapable of owning themselves, without formal ownership they become communal property, and a tragedy of the commons to exploit them commences.

    Kgaard Reply:


    Good one Aeroguy. Should be framed.

    A.B. Prosper Reply:


    Which Constitutional Government ?

    The Federal minarchist State the Founding Fathers created. The Post Reconstruction one?

    The Modern One?

    Also assuming Constitutional government was restired how will you keep future courts from allowing crap like Roe v. Wade, the Patriot Act or the vast amount of gun control and other manipulations.

    Unless you have a specific interpretation enforced by the State, muh constutushun is meaningless.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Official interpretations are subject to semantic slippage, and aren’t good enough.

    You need a sovereign interpreter.


    Posted on April 4th, 2016 at 2:11 am Reply | Quote
  • Rogue Planet Says:

    Add that talk of “duties” and “obligations” to the list of dodgy “musts”. This lot loves to tell us what we have to do, while never bothering to explain exactly how or why we’re obliged to do what they think. Funny, that.


    odoacer Reply:

    As long as you acknowledge your blood guilt with the appropriate tone of humility and concern. Also, make sure to show your palms frequently so people know you aren’t carrying any weapons.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    To paraphrase the late Frank Zappa, anyone dumb enough to be persuaded by evangelist Cults of Reason deserve everything they get.


    Gentile Ben Reply:

    The ability to punish or recommend punishment, and thus remove competition, is part of what makes the Cathedral memeplex so attractive.


    Posted on April 4th, 2016 at 5:02 am Reply | Quote
  • Yakimi Says:

    How ironic that these megalomanic, totalitarian neo-Jacobins are the same progressives who fulminate so furiously against Western imperialism. What is the establishment of global equality, if not the civilizing mission? What is the “elimination of unsafe, undesirable thinking”, if not the eradication of barbarism and savagery?

    Progressivism, as I’ve long claimed, is the highest stage of Western imperialism. The West imposes itself on all others by claiming that its ideals—Equality and Justice, for example—alone are universal and that their planetary triumph is an absolute moral necessity. It is no wonder that the most vociferous opponents .of Western colonialism were all Westerners. To them, the Third World wasn’t declaring its independence; it was simply graduating to a higher stage of Westernization: leftism.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    It’s not ironic at all, it’s boringly standard power politics. Where two bloodthirsty regimes compete, of course one is interested in concealing one’s own brutality and emphasizing that of the adversary.


    Posted on April 4th, 2016 at 7:30 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    The hive mind is only content when everyone else is infected, too.


    odoacer Reply:

    Personal is political: you aren’t allowed to do your own thing apart from the herd. The goal is Maoist mandatory self-criticism meetings, lead by the most ideologically fluent POCs, for the explicit purpose of ritual white male humiliation.


    Posted on April 4th, 2016 at 12:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Joe Says:

    IMHO the root of the error in left-wing thought is the idea that equality is the highest value. If you start with the premise that the noblest pursuit of man is equality, then ideas like getting rid of free speech reasonably follow. But attacking these left-wing arguments against free speech is not as effective as attacking left-wing thought at its core, which is the idea that equality is the highest value..

    I think that the best way to help people see that equality is not the highest value, and is in fact a very destructive value, is to make the case for a higher value than equality, one that instinctively resonates with people. The best formulation that I’ve come up with is “excellence, in accordance with nature, leavened with compassion”.

    I made this argument to a left-wing friend and she got that quiet look while I was talking that shows that someone is actually considering what you’re saying instead of waiting for their turn to talk. And she got kind of excited about the idea that excellence was the highest value. It rang true for her.


    Jesse M. Reply:

    As a leftist it doesn’t ring true to me that leftists in general think “equality is the highest value”, although it may be true for certain factions like the author of the piece in question (see here for an interesting breakdown of different leftist factions). If you want a sort of cartoon vision of my (and many other leftists’) ideal society, just think of science fiction depictions of post-scarcity societies like the Federation in Star Trek or Iain Banks’ The Culture–a society where no one has to suffer from obstacles like poverty or getting sick from curable diseases or poor-quality education due to lack of money, so everyone has the maximum potential to develop whatever talents they have. The idea is that everyone is free to focus on pursuing excellence without having to put aside that pursuit because they have to focus on basic survival needs or can’t afford the education needed to develop their interests.


    TroperA Reply:

    But what if focusing on our basic survival needs is something we need to do to maintain basic mental health? It’s my opinion that Star Trekian post-scarcity societies cannot exist because the kind of people who would run them cannot exist. Human Nature won’t allow it.

    State of Nature: People work grueling 16 hour days in order to produce barely enough food to eat as well as their shelter and clothing.

    Star Trek Utopia: Scientists create high calorie foods. People only grow what they need and are wise enough to resist overeating. Science is used to create non-food items for consumption and governments/institutions are wise enough to distribute these items fairly. People use non-working time on recreation and cultural pursuits.

    Real Modern World: Scientists create high calorie foods. People grow far too much of it and pig out, ruining their bodies.Science is used to create non-food items for consumption but the elites who run the political and banking systems are greedy assholes who steal the lion’s share of the money and then use their influence and resources to pit the lower classes against each other. Jobs are given to factory slaves in foreign countries and bread, circuses and video games are used to pacify the idle Citizens of the Empire. People feel they’re better off than they’ve ever been but they suck down antidepressants like parade candy.

    State of Nature: Women need to bear 6-8 children in order to have enough surviving children to maintain and grow a population. Women need to forge a strong bond with a man in order to gain the resources needed to raise children.

    Star Trek Utopia: Science allows any person or combination of people to have kids. Children live in a community where they undergo constant validation and have all of their needs met. Also, they don’t suffer mental hangups if one or both parents desert them since they can be replaced with other loving adults. Loving marriages can exist because men and women are wise enough to forgo the cultural and biological baggage that’s tied to their sex and just treat each other as equals.

    Real Modern World: Science allows any person or combination of people to have kids, but single mothers burden the system monetarily and kids without fathers have a higher tendency to become either cucks or criminals. Governments treat men and women as equal and interchangeable, but women take their voting power and immediately use it to set up a system where Government becomes Husband and Father. White Men generate most of the tax revenue but they’re forced to hand over huge chunks of their salary to support women they didn’t marry and children they didn’t sire. White Men soon check out of the dating/job markets and the government eventually collapses because it runs out of of taxpayers to fleece. It tries to import new taxpayers from the Third World, a large portion of whom end up going on the Dole and becoming an even bigger problem.

    So there it goes. Star Trek Utopia World cannot exist, because people who can forgo 200,000 years of animal instinct and embrace Equality can only exist on TV shows written by Liberals. I wouldn’t want to go back to living in a State of Nature, but I’m winning to bet that if I were able to hack it, I would enjoy a higher level of health and well being than I do now in Toxic Modern Real World.


    Jesse M. Reply:

    If human nature won’t allow it, how do you explain all the historical contributions to science and literature that came from people who came from inherited wealth and had no need to work to survive? Look at how many of the 19th century’s greatest scientists came from the landed gentry class, like James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the laws of electromagnetism, Charles Babbage who drew up the earliest plans for full-fledged computer, or that great prophet of Gnon Charles Darwin. Aside from high-minded motivations like art and science for their own sake, status is naturally still going to be an important motivator among people who don’t need to work to survive, and there will also still be inherently scarce goods people that would also motivate people to try to earn extra money beyond the basic income level, like beachfront property or backstage passes at a concert.

    And sure, in a post-scarcity society most people won’t be making any lasting contribution to science or art, but I’d expect the fraction to be at least somewhat higher than today, and there’ll still be human-service jobs like teaching and probably plenty of demand for goods made with that human touch (like the modern demand for locally-grown food from small farms) even if they can also be made more cheaply by machine. And if a significant fraction of people just spend their time hanging out with friends/families or going to public entertainment events (music performances, sports games etc.) or playing virtual reality games, that still seems better than spending most of one’s day on a completely uninteresting job that one does solely for the paycheck.

    As for obesity, the amount of obesity varies a lot by which population you’re looking at, for example obesity rates are pretty low in Japan despite them having a fairly social-democrat-like welfare state and a high standard of living. And within the US, the wealthier classes have a lot lower obesity rates than the poor and working class. Some of this might be due to genetic sorting where the wealthier are more likely to have genes that favor conscientiousness and long-term thinking (if so, widespread genetic selection of embryos could be one way of fixing the obesity problem in the post-scarcity future), but cultural differences may also play a large role.

    You also bring up single mothers burdening the system, but the idea of a real post-scarcity society is that continued automation will make it much cheaper than today to fund a livable basic income…on Star Trek they have replicators, but even if we’re not going to be converting pure energy into arbitrary physical goods anytime soon, goods produced self-replicating machines should still see a huge reduction in scarcity and therefore in cost. If I can buy an advanced 3D printer and use it to churn out more 3D printers just like it, the cost of that type of 3D printer (and anything I can make with it) is going to drop down to little more than the cost of the raw materials and energy that need to be fed into it in order to make more. And if most manufactured goods are dirt-cheap, the tax rate on income earners needed to fund a comfortable basic income level for those who don’t earn any other income wouldn’t need to be very high.

    “Star Trek Utopia World cannot exist, because people who can forgo 200,000 years of animal instinct and embrace Equality can only exist on TV shows written by Liberals”

    Well, the whole point of my earlier comment was that wanting to ensure everyone has a basic level of material comfort and the best opportunities to fulfill their potentials is not at all the same thing as believing there should be some sort of absolute “Equality” in outcomes. Some people will still achieve more recognition and respect than others, and presumably get to enjoy higher living standards than the basic income floor–even in the idealized society of Star Trek, only a small fraction of people have what it takes to earn the privilege of being a starship captain or chief engineer or whatever.

    A.B. Prosper Reply:

    That idea of what constitutes state of nature is whiggish

    People who live in a state of nature are hunter gatherers and while they live precarious lives with limited ability to store food, they work maybe four, five hours a day, not sixteen.

    This was the course of basically all of human history till farming

    Once that was invented along with food preservation, it became possible to store more food but it also became possible for larger number of people to parasite off workers or for benefits to be spread far less evenly.

    Hell even in the Middle Ages people didn’t work that much. yes harvest was brutal and grueling but there were a lot of state enforced, well church same thing holidays and because the nature of the economy , people outside the merchant class didn’t work to gain. You couldn’t. The land produced X, that is all you are going to get.

    It wasn’t till the industrialist age that this kind of thing happened and people other commonly were worked to death.

    The reason people are so unhappy and socialism keeps rearing its head is simple, they don’t live in anything close to a human state of nature. They are basically cogs for a society run by merchant sociopath clergy

    Future societies that want to survive and I suspect such societies will never exist, had better take that into account and ditch ideas of progress.

    My suspicion though is they won’t and we won’t have anywhere else to go so we’ll blow ourselves up though hopefully we’ll die back not off.

    Posted on April 4th, 2016 at 2:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    ‘establishing true justice in our time’
    concerns for others, who are not able to take care of themselves, is a kind of ‘tag’ in this line of poisonous narrative. if he actually want to protect society from those dangers, he MUST to isolate himself in Sahara desert. cause enemy is ‘us’.


    Posted on April 4th, 2016 at 3:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • pyrrhus Says:

    Any group in which free speech is not protected will be intellectually moribund within a generation. Our mostly useless Universities are rapidly reaching room temperature.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Irrelevance is the inevitable fate of any institution that seeks to enfranchise the lowest common denominator.


    Posted on April 5th, 2016 at 5:18 am Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Anyone who swore an oath to uphold the big-C constitution would, I think, be honor bound to do everything in his power to turn the current small-c constitution to a shiny sea of glass.


    Posted on April 8th, 2016 at 1:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Link: The sneaky r-type order of “We must” | Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar Says:

    […] Quote note (#236) […]

    Posted on April 12th, 2016 at 9:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2016/04/10) - Social Matter Says:

    […] Land finds an example of ‘Must’ Incontinence. LOL. That phrase needed to exist. Now it […]

    Posted on April 13th, 2016 at 5:35 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment