Cargo cult leftism as a suicide pact

A perusal of Instapundit discussed cargo cult thinking. It reminded me of a post on that subject nearly at the beginning of this here blog.

Cargo cultism can be thought of as a mindset which extrapolates over a wide range of leftist thought. The Instapundit post was in relation to economics. It so happens that the higher interest rates are now becoming a large part of the budget, and is pressuring the government to add more debt. But that is what caused the problem in the first place. Now they are wanting to add yet more debt in order to service the debt that already exists. The problem is that it crowds out the rest of the budget. It has caught up to defense spending. What's next? A lot of the social spending that the left loves so much. Here's the link with regards to defense spending: Interest expenses exceed defense

Here's the link to the original post here with regards to science. Cargo cult science

In case anybody needs to be reminded, there was something called a pandemic, which resulted in a shutdown of economic activity, which was supposed to last only a few weeks, but kind of became semi-permanent. We were constantly being lectured about the "science", which wasn't science at all. It was a cargo cult. The vaccine really wasn't a vaccine, because its efficacy and safety wasn't scientifically demonstrated. But we got the lectures and their magic word, which was supposed to save us all, but didn't. No more than the building of wooden boxes and talking into them could cause the planes to come from afar with all those goodies. A vaccine is a word that means something. If it doesn't work, it isn't a vaccine.

The cargo cult is in the assumption that merely mentioning the magic words would make good things appear. It was like those South Pacific Islanders during World War II. They didn't understand what science was, so they just imitated what they saw, and thought it could produce the same results. The goodies didn't come because of some magical incantation, but from knowledge obtained through work and merit. It so happens that the left is trying to erase all ideas of merit, and assumes that everybody is exactly equal, even if they don't do anything to earn the merit. Otherwise known as "free stuff". Or "equality". But what if people aren't equally motivated to do the work necessary to achieve something? It cannot be just assumed as if by the mere utterance of a magic word.

Supposedly, calling someone a racist for pointing this out, will make the accuser a more moral person. More cargo cultism, as the accusation doesn't prove more merit to the accuser, nor does it prove that the accusation is true or not.

Expanding the idea further, the left is always looking for its next Watergate. They got rid of Nixon that way, so the mere accusation of wrongdoing is enough to impeach a president. That's true for them even though they have no evidence of what they are accusing anybody of. Here's the link on Watergate Redux. Watergate redux as cargo cult

The point of the Cargo Cult is that merit isn't required. The mere mention of a magic word, or a magic incantation, such as Watergate, will somehow produce the results desired. The truth behind it isn't understood. Or the lack of truth, to be more exact. Without merit, the entire basis of a complex and modern society isn't sustainable. Hence, the drive towards more and more mediocrity and failure. The budget failures and military failures are further examples of how this is metasizing throughout Western Civilization.

Like the Jim Jones cultists that drank the Kool-Aid, the cargo cultists just need to keep the faith. Everything will be proven in the end. But what if they are wrong? Or shall it be said, what makes them right? If you remove all merit, the how do you know what the truth is about any matter?

The root of all this is in leftist guilt tripping, which makes them feel culturally superior. They feel super guilty, and feeling this way makes them feel superior. Like the Kool Aid, it is a suicide pact. Western Culture is destroying itself in order to make some of its people feel better about things in the past, in which they had nothing to do with. But it makes them feel superior, don't you know. It may get us all dead if it isn't stopped.

Trump CNN townhall last night

Update III, 5-12-23:


Update III, Bongino on Trump CNN Townhall

Bongino covers a few points of the Townhall, of which I saw most of them previously. As mentioned, I didn't see all of the Townhall. Evidently, I saw more than I thought. Unless there was a lot more that I missed, I must have seen the better part of it.

Here is an embed of Bongino's comments, plus some other stuff not related to the Townhall. One thing in particular, is a grifter type ( says Bongino) who tried to latch on to Bongino when he ran for office. That would be about at the 29 minute mark. Bongino says he didn't reply to the guy, and the guy never did get the message. I would think that a non-answer to your attempts at communication should be a pretty big clue. Another one could be when Bongino decided to "show the receipts" on his podcast. If I was in that guy's shoes, I'd hope I'd get the message sooner than that. It must be embarrassing to get called out like that. Or maybe not. Maybe those guys aren't normal guys.

Bongino showed the guy melting down over Trump's appearance on the Townhall. It seems that some folks think that using really bad language like that helps them get their point across. I don't know about that. Not that my language is all that great, but at least I TRY to improve.

One more thing... Since when is it okay to censor people that you don't like? Evidently, the idea that you can do that has taken hold in this country. If the shoe was on the other foot, they'd be screaming "free speech". I recall when Bush was in office, these people were whining about free speech when nobody was "canceling" them or anything. All anyone ever did with respect to them is to answer back, but they don't even want to allow that. These people have a lot of gall to complain about free speech, or freedom, or democracy. They don't respect it themselves. If anyone on the GOP side even brought that up, it would be an improvement. Many of them just seem to lie down and be door mats for the left.

Here's the video...

5-12-23:


Second Update on Trump-CNN Townhall

As usual, the focus is on the wrong things... So, let's at least try here (if nowhere else) to focus on what the issues really are. It isn't about CNN's and Fox's ratings. The question is this: What really happened on January 6th, and what really happened before? Nobody is asking the right questions, it seems to me.

I watched the Townhall from the beginning again, and didn't get far into it. Caitlyn Collins asked about "suspending the Constitution". There's no way that Trump meant it that way, and he denied that interpretation. But the rest of the usual suspects jumped all over it claiming that Trump wanted to suspend the Constitution. To the extent that Trump could have said something similiar is not being debated here. The question is INTENT. Does Trump intend to suspend the Constitution? He said no to that question at the Townhall. I'm sure that he INTENT wasn't to say any such thing, as is being claimed.

Indeed, why should he? If the Constitution was actually followed on that day, he would be president now. Or he would have stood a good chance of being president right now. Why? Because in those states that were being contested, the state legislatures were controlled by Republicans. There's no guarantee that they'd have turned the election back to Trump, but they could have. The riot was set up in order to keep that possibility from ever being mentioned in the debate in Congress. Once Congress called an emergency, that was the end of all debate, and Biden was installed as President. So, why in the world would Trump want to derail a process that would have given him a possible victory?

By the same token, why wouldn't Trump's enemies want to derail that process? I believe that is exactly why they did, and why they are supressing all discussion as best they can so that they can continue to get away with it. That is why Trump's enemies need the narrative that there was an insurrection so that they can continue with this charade. That is why Tucker Carlson's show was cancelled. Nobody is going to be allowed to see the truth.

As before, I didn't watch all of the Townhall. But that one question that did get asked stood out, and I stopped there. This is dangerous territory for the perpertrators, and is probably the real reason they are getting freaked out. Chances are though, that the lie will continue to live on.

Trump's fans say that he won this exchange. Not really. Unless he starts to ask these questions himself, he will not be successful, in my opinion. This has to get down to the truth of the matter. What really happened during this 2020 election, and will we ever know? If those in charge have it their way, we will never know. He didn't help himself when he said something to the effect that the Constitution needs to be suspended. But he didn't mean that, in my opinion. There's no reason to give up on the Constitution, but there is plenty of reason to give up on this ruling class. They do not care about the Constitution nor the truth. That's especially true of those like Liz Cheney.

She jumped all over that statement that Trump made, and it clearly shows an agenda. Are we to really believe that those people who support Trump really want the Constitution to go away? That is ridiculous. It is galling, especially for people like Cheney to say that when she was part of the kangaroo court process of the select committee. There is no way that these people are interested in the truth, or they would have had a fair and honest process. That committee was certainly not any such thing as a fair and honest process.

first update:

5-12-23:
Update on Trump CNN Townhall

A little thought on the matter will show that something is being overlooked here. No mention was ever made on the fact of what was the role of the Vice President with respect to the counting of the electoral votes. The questions were being asked by the moderator, Caitlyn ? (nasty) of CNN. Then, the audience was allowed to ask questions. None of those questions, unless asked by someone in the audience, were asked on that issue.

The truth of the matter is that the Constitution is silent on that question. It is left to the Congress and the Vice President as to what he will do in that situation. It WAS mentioned that the law has since been changed. However, a question could then be asked as to whether or not Congress can stipulate what the duty of the Vice President actually is in that situation. Only the states have that authority according to the Constitution.

Vice President Pence decided not to throw it back to the state legislatures. There's nothing in the Constitution that forbids this, and one could ask what harm that there would be in that if it were to happen. It was decided that there would indeed be harm in that. The only harm possible would be that the results reported to Congress originally would have been overturned---meaning Trump is still President. The question is whether or not that can be done.

To do so would not end "Democracy". The elections are set up by the state legislatures. If the state authorities followed the laws set forth by the respective state legislatures, then the system was working as intended. How would throwing it back to the state legislatures have done anything to upset what is in the Constitution? The Constitution does not provide for the direct election of the president by a vote from the people. It is a process set forth by the state legislatures. It is a fair question whether or not the will of the various legislatures was actually honored. Therefore, to ask the state legislatures that question is not out of bounds or illegal in any way.

But Pence decided not to do that. He claimed he had no such authority. One should ask why not? What prevents the question from being asked since that the is process that the Constitution delegated to the states? If the states cannot answer that question, then what authority do the state legislatures have?

The question could have been asked of the Supreme Court. If the Court refused to take it up, then it was avoiding the issue. If it wasn't asked of the Court, then it would seem that this point is being missed. Probably quite deliberately so, I suspect. It is rather easy for me to get suspicious these days when it comes to these people.

I don't know if anyone in the audience asked or not. It has been said that the network shut the Townhall down early. Perhaps it wasn't asked, but only because the network didn't want anybody to ask such a question. It is also quite possible that the Congress itself didn't want that question asked, and that is why the riot was set up so as to be able to declare an emergency and shut down all proceedings under an emergency umbrella that would install Biden as president.

I smell a rat. But this a lonely off the main highway sort of place on the webs. What difference would it make if I were to ask that question here on this blog? Who would pay attention? Anybody? Who would care? Anybody?

5-11-23, Original post below:

It's on Rumble, if anyone is interested. How long it will be on Rumble is anyone's guess.

There are many stories out there that want to tell you what to think about it. However, if you want to see for yourself, you can watch it on Rumble. I did. It did seem like a friendly audience. The host was hostile, though. She kept up with the boiler plate jive-ass crap that the media loves to run. The media doesn't seem to understand that they have no credibility.

There are those who say that CNN shouldn't have provided Trump with a platform. You can say many things to that, including the obvious fact that CNN's ratings haven't been too good lately. Fox used to be the leader, but they decided to fire Tucker Carlson, and Fox's ratings are going into the tank. If there's any reason for CNN to give Trump a platform, it was to take advantage of the self-inflicted wound that Fox gave itself for firing Tucker Carlson. In other words, this could put CNN on top. Fox is going to the bottom, since they obviously fired Carlson to silence him about January 6th.

The Democrats and their media accomplices want a one-sided narrative that they always control. Obviously, they are not happy that Trump got the opportunity to give his side of the story.

I watched only about 10 or 15 minutes of the townhall. There wasn't a whole lot there that was new. The only new thing maybe, is that the other side, Trump's side, was allowed to be presented. They love to present the fact that Trump has been indicted, but what they don't want anyone to see is that other side. This includes the evidence in the courts, which is clearly adverse to the rule of law, which they fraudulently claim to defend. Why wouldn't they get indictments, and even convictions with such a one-sided process?

I don't need to see anything though. The January 6th riot was a pre-planned event conducted by the Democrats so as to put an end to any dispute over the election outcome, and to install Joe Biden as President. It is very suspicious, therefore, because of "cui bono"-- who benefits. It is very convenient to have that as an opportunity and excuse to shut down all opposition and controversy. The deplatforming is part of that effort, which was to keep this a secret. People won't be allowed to know what really happened on January 6th. The tapes are still being kept secret.

What happens as a consequence to this is unclear. It appears that the Democrats want to jail Trump, and to disqualify him for office. Whether or not that succeeds is hard to say. They've gotten this far, so it may work. They are getting a lot of help from the RINOS. The RINOS and their sponsors, the Democrats, are dishonoring themselves and the country.

Pretty typical thing for the media, RINOS, and Democrats

 

This is an ex post facto law.  That means "after the fact".  If it was legal yesterday, the same thing cannot be illegal tomorrow.  It's in the Constitution.  Not that that matters to these people.  Source:
Twitter:  https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1656335296085245952

Generally ticked off type post

That title make me chuckle a bit. Sure, I make fun of myself. It is sort of a defense mechanism to avoid getting too darned serious about myself. But it allows me to write some hard hitting stuff. Or I believe it should be hard hitting. If it isn't hard hitting, then it gets a lot of pageviews! People want to hear fairy tales. Hopefully, I don't do stuff like that here. ( My theory about the lack of pageviews!)

So here we go again with another push for gun-control after another shoot 'em up somewhere. So let me just state it this way. Politicians on both sides of the aisle don't want to solve the darned problem. They want to use the situation to gain power for themselves. Otherwise, they would do things that work. Instead of doing things that work, they do things that don't work, then it is back to the same old stuff.

First of all, you don't allow crooks to own the darned streets. If the left was serious about stopping these things, they'd actually police the borders and the cities. But they only want to use these incidents in order to push for more power for themselves. In other words, they LOVE these things happening, while pretending to care about it. If they really cared about it, they friggin' do the kind of things that work. Taking guns away only encourages the baddies to do more crimes. The baddies are like predators in the animal kingdom. They seek out weakness and exploit it. They don't go after well protected types. They go after the weak. Taking guns away just makes people weaker, and only encourages the baddies to do more of the same.

The so-called conservatives don't give a crap either. They'll use it to fund raise and so forth. They won't do anything concrete to solve any problems. They pretend to give a crap, but they do nothing. Here's what they could do. For any gun free zone, proprietors must show security arrangements. That means security guards and fencing. If the retailers want to do retail, then they'd better darned well provide security for their customers. Otherwise, they should not be allowed to do business. The conservatives will say, "but what about freedom?" There are two sides to the problem. One side is the people who are like sheep and need protection. The other side are the wolves who need to be controlled. The honest people are not the wolves. Stop letting the left punish the honest people and reward the wolves. If you aren't solving the problem, you are part of the problem. Make places where people gather provide security, or make it plain that you cannot do business in that jurisdiction. If you want to carry a gun into a place like that, make yourselves conspicuous. That should provide a deterrent effect. There is a principle involved. With freedom comes responsiblity. If you won't be responsible, then don't expect to keep your freedom.

All we get is slogans and more fundraising and agitprop. The left says "enough". The so-called right gives up ground a little at a time until there's no more left. In the end, we are all going to made into free range sheep for the wolves. Screw that.

It is the general principle involved. You turn to government and you get more government. You can see that the government doesn't do anything to solve problems. If anything, they intentionally make things worse. What do you expect when you shut down police and the borders, and free the baddies from prisons?

The so-called conservatives are like watch dogs that don't bark. If they aren't barking like mad, then they aren't DOING THEIR FRIGGIN' JOB. Fire them and get someone else who will. The last thing you do is give in to the power mad leftists and their RINO butt buddies.

There are a lot of laws on the books. It does seem funny that none of these laws seem to get enforced. It is almost as if the politicians like to see this crap happening. There's a lot of money and power at stake here. That seems to be their priorities, as opposed to actually fixing anything. That's the fairy tale that both parties like to sell, but there aren't solutions, because solutions don't help the politicians, which is only thing the politicians really give a crap about.

Kangaroo court convicts J6th defendants on conspiracy to commit sedition

That's the whole point. To get that conviction, they can go after Trump on the same charges. With another Kangaroo court, they will convict. A conviction will allow them to claim that Trump cannot be President again.

The trial wasn't a fair trial. The riot wasn't an insurrection. None of it is true, as the real perpetrators know. They know this, or they wouldn't be holding such a ridiculous trial in the first place. Only in a place like Washington DC, in these days and times, could be partisan enough to hold such a trial. Much less to convict. You can say a lot about these people, but for raw chutzpah, they take the friggin' cake.

The defendants' rights were not respected. The venue was over 90% Democrat. Indeed, these people are rabidly partisan. There is no chance that they could get a fair trial in such a place. The prosecutors had to know this. Indeed, it may be one of the few places in the country in which they could hold such a ridiculous trial, and still get a conviction.

They wanted this conviction, and a partisan jury gave them what they wanted. They need this in order to dispose of Trump. "They" meaning the ones who claim that Brandon actually won a farcical election that itself was a fraud. They need this in order to preserve their legitimacy. A better way could have been done, which would have been accordance to the law and to the truth. But they refused to go that direction. Why could that have been the case?

Nothing could be more damning to these people than what they did here. It could only have happened with people who are guilty of a crime themselves, and need Trump out of the way. If Trump was still in the way, an IMPARTIAL jury could probably convict them of a worse crime, and these people KNOW it.

Washington DC has no credibility anymore. Neither do the Republicans, because many of them in high places are with the commies in allowing this to happen. They could stop it, but won't. That too, is damning.

It's hard to see any way out of this, but surrender or dictatorship. The Supreme Court HAD to know the election was rigged. The Supreme Court HAS to know that this trial violated all of the defendants' rights. But this Supreme Court will not do anything either. If it does do anything, count me as being very surprised. The Supreme Court is just as corrupt as the rest. They had their chance with the election appeal recently, with respect to oaths of office. If the court ruled in the favor of the plaintiffs, that would mean that the Court itself could be subject to its implications. That's why the court ruled against the plaintiffs. Can't have anybody questioning THEM, now can't we? They could be weighed in the balance too, and found wanting. You might say the "writing is on the wall".

Jonah and the whale

Moby Dick flick-- Pastor's sermon about Jonah and the whale

I've watched this a few times. Some of Ahab's lines were taken almost word-for-word in the Star Trek flick "Wrath of Khan". But not the sermon. Maybe the Christianity was too much for Roddenberry. /snark

Gregory Peck makes a fine Ahab. His name looks familiar. How about that?

Er, that's not to mean that I'm chasing a white whale. Not the literal kind, nor the metaphorical kind.

One of the Gospels mentions that Jesus said that a wicked generation seeks after a sign, but no sign will be given it save the sign of Jonah. Aside from the obvious, is there a deeper meaning? Jonah was commanded to preach before the heathen, but ran away on a ship. Did Jesus want to "run away"?

The Gospels said that he knew what was going to happen to him, then he should've wanted to run away. Getting nailed to a cross to die isn't exactly a pleasant way to go.