PDT slurs speech and the left goes wild

Posted on December 8, 2017 by lawofmarkets

You have to see the Youtube reaction in full to appreciate how depraved the left have become. Hillary collapses as she gets into her limousine and there is nothing to see. This instead fills the left and the media (same thing, I know) with delight.

But while you are listening for the slurring of his words, you might also wish to listen to his words as well. What must truly rile his enemies is the amount of good President Trump is doing, both domestically and across the world. Peace in the Middle East is impossible, but it would not be the first impossibility he has pulled off.

For myself, I wish him long life and do worry about his health and well being because of how irreplaceable he is.

Stumblebum leftist jerks

Posted on December 5, 2017 by lawofmarkets

Via Instapundit.

KURT SCHLICHTER: The Mainstream Media Doesn’t Deserve Our Respect or Our Trust. “The mainstream liberal media is primarily composed of stumblebum leftist jerks who want all the glory and respect due a caste of objective, moral truth-seekers, yet who don’t want to do the hard work of actually being objective or moral or seeking the truth. . . . You have Matt Lauer, probably America’s most highly-paid journalist, who “everyone” knew was a skeevy weirdo who’d probably creep out Woody Allen. Well, everyone did know, except us, the media’s audience. Our media overlords didn’t think we needed to know that little bit of information. Some obscure Texas congressmen sends texts of his ancient junk to a girlfriend and, after he dumps her, she gets mad and puts them up on the web? Oh, that’s news – America must know that vital info. But when the flagship anchor of the flagship show on the flagship broadcast network uses his powers to basically build a sex dungeon in 30 Rock – nope, not news.”

Journalists, like intellectuals, write about things they know virtually nothing about pretending to be experts. But fools are people who take the opinions they read in the papers as if they actually represent anything more than the views of the shallowest of partisan hacks.

Speaking of which, this is from the Instapundit comments:

If there is irony and exaggeration found in any of it, it has gone by me completely. And then there was this, also in the comments.

Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

Which leads to this final comment which makes no end of sense: “My new policy is to vote for people who have the right enemies.” Everything then becomes crystal clear as long as they also have the right friends.

Media misrepresentation and PDT

Posted on November 29, 2017 by lawofmarkets

Elizabeth Warren pretended to have Native American bloodlines which has turned out to be absolutely untrue. A liar, but what else is new. Cultural Marxists see absolutely no scandals on the left. All this is discussed in The Oz: Donald Trump in ‘Pocahontas’ race slur. One might be described as a racist for saying something about someone else’s racial background, but cannot be a racist by making fun of someone who describes themselves as a Native American who is not in fact a Native American. And to add to the pile-on, there is then this which has just come up: Elizabeth Warren ancestors rounded up Cherokee people for trail of tears. But that is just background to this:

As sexual misconduct allegations widen in the US congress [no details since they all involve Democrats], the President has broken with leading Republicans [Republicans! whose side are they on?] in effectively backing the conservative former judge accused of unwanted sexual advances towards teenage girls [forty years ago].

While warning that a Democratic victory would be a disaster for Alabama and the US Senate, Mr Trump has stressed that Mr Moore denied all the allegations [not to mention the absence of evidence aside from a single signature in a high school yearbook which is fake, fake fake].

Mr Moore, a populist fundamentalist Christian [and therefor obviously unfit to sit in the Senate], unveiled a campaign ad that claims he is the victim of “false allegations” in a “scheme by liberal elites and the Republican establishment” [where would he get such a notion not to mention what a really really strange pairing it is]. . . .

Meanwhile, Mr Trump badly needs a Moore victory to maintain the Senate’s 52-48 Republican majority [and why don’t the Republicans in general need this victory as well?]. A loss in Alabama would make it even more difficult to muster the votes to pass his tax, infrastructure and welfare reforms [don’t the Republicans want tax, infrastructure and welfare reforms?].

Critics speculate that his support for Mr Moore’s candidacy is partly influenced by Mr Trump’s own experience in facing sexual harassment allegations from several women before last year’s election. Mr Trump denied the claims [for which, surprisingly, there was also no evidence].

The allegations against the President followed the release of the “Access Hollywood tapes” in which Mr Trump made disparaging comments about women. The New York Times has reported that the President has privately denied the tapes were genuine, despite admitting last year to making the comments. But the White House said yesterday Mr Trump’s position on the tapes had not changed.

Democrat senator Al Franken, who has been accused by four women of inappropriate touching or groping, returned to Washington yesterday saying he was shocked and embarrassed [what about the pictures??? – without the pics he would have admitted nothing].

“I have been trying to take responsibility by apologising and by apologising to the people I let down. I’m going to work to regain their trust. I am going to be accountable, [whatever that means, which for a Democrat and media enablers is literally nothing]” Senator Franken said.

He refused to resign [among the great surprises of our time] and has pledged to co-operate with the Senate ethics committee. “I know that I have let a lot of people down. People of Minnesota and my colleagues, my staff, my supporters and everyone who has counted on me to be a champion for women [what a champ!]. To all of you I just wanted to say again I am sorry,” he said. [This wouldn’t be a different standard for Democrats, would it?]

Long-serving Democrat congressman John Conyers has stepped down from his position on the House Judiciary Committee after being accused of using taxpayer dollars to settle an unfair dismissal claim made by a former staffer who accused him of sexual harassment [he paid out money to settle the claim; now that is what I call evidence but he has not resigned from Congress].

And that’s The Oz although what difference does it at this stage really make? Will add a couple of comments from the story.

Mr Stewart lets give the real story. Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic congresswomen, told a bald faced lie when she stated that she had a native American heritage to gain benefits from the government.The press named her Pocahontas as a joke. Trump, as he does, picked up on it, and he is not above name calling as we all know. What a breath of fresh air for someone to call it like it is. And yes, the last of the Navajo code talkers from WW2 are the real Hero’s and REAL native Americans who did not need to lie to serve their country or make a fraudulently claim.

Should have called her by her original nickname Fauxohontas, more accurate than Pocohontas and is a fairer description of her deceit. Like all Leftists they will do whatever it takes to advance themselves and then the media criticises the critics who call it out. Strange days indeed.

Agit prop and the agent provocateur Bowdlerised edition

Posted on November 26, 2017 by lawofmarkets

Given some of the comments on a previous post let me give you a Bowdlerised version. Says the same thing as before but perhaps not quite as pointed. For myself, reading some of the reactions to what I wrote I can see there are quite a few, even amongst those who come here, who have no idea what the problem we are dealing with is nor what needs to be done. Anyway, see what you make of this.

The one blessing about being brought up in a communist household is that you understand the left a good deal better than most. It also brings an added measure of concern when I see how easily a public unused to lying as a tactic is influenced by these manoeuvres which are standard practice on the left. My Dad was an expert in agit prop and I grew up understanding the role of the agent provocateur only too well. These are not well-meaning individuals who wish to investigate the truth. They are individuals whose only interest is to disrupt the communications among those on the other side through whatever lies they might find convenient and they hope persuasive.

The example I am going to use is my post Remember Michelle Fields? It is simply undeniable that Fields told a story that was intended to harm Donald Trump’s run for president but was thoroughly discredited by the videos that showed everything she said, and the Washington Post initially said, were lies. The point of the post was to remind us that the media will lie without any hesitation if they can see some political advantage for the left’s political agenda. That is also the message of this post, and it is one that can never be repeated often enough. You will be lied to by the left to the furthest extent they believe they can get away with. That there is not an instantaneous scepticism amongst us on this side of politics from any unverified political story carried by a mainstream media organisation fills me with dread since most of us are so middle class that we find it hard to believe others will lie, distort, or withhold relevant information without the slightest hesitation if it serves their ends. The attitude you need to take when reading anything from an MSM report is the same attitude you might take when buying a used car. Do not trust a thing you are told and make sure you verify everything you can from a separate source.

Dishonesty is the trade mark of the left, not that they have a monopoly, but it is a specific tactic aimed at the fair minded who are seldom as aware as they need to be of the practice, and seldom think of the need to guard against the premeditated lies they tell. You would have to be pretty thick not to know that Michelle Fields was a liar and that her aim was deliberate and strictly political. The interesting part is that for the left to succeed, they can only achieve their ends by lying. For the right, what you hear people say is almost invariably what they believe. The left often mimics the same concerns but it is tactical and never substantive unless for a change good policy overlaps what they see as tactical advantage.

The one valuable part of being on this side of the fence is that with so many out there on the left who will swarm around any genuine falsehood stated by someone on the right, the standard of probity is higher. This is part of the reason why sex scandals, to just name the issue in relation to Roy Moore, are not as common on the right as on the left. Except that when they are caught out – such as with Bill Clinton – it is no longer a scandal and is put to bed as soon as it is practical to do so. They never mean it. It is not hypocrisy, it is a policy of deceit. They are perfectly aware they are lying and just take the rest of us for fools.

Oh by the way, have you caught up with the CNN story about Trump feeding the fish in Japan.

You cannot believe a word they say. Why is this even controversial?

Agit prop and the agent provocateur

Posted on November 25, 2017 by lawofmarkets

There are a few I feel I have spotted over the years coming to this site, but I will only focus on one since I find the comments by BorisG particularly instructive. And the example I am going to use are the comments made on my post Remember Michelle Fields? It is simply undeniable that Fields told a story that was intended to harm Donald Trump’s run for president but was thoroughly discredited by the videos that showed everything she said, and the Washington Post initially said, were lies. The point of the post was to remind us that the media will lie without any hesitation if they can see some political advantage for the left’s political agenda. That is the message of this post, and it is one that can never be repeated often enough. You will be lied to by the left to the furthest extent they believe they can get away with. That there is not an instantaneous scepticism amongst us on this side of politics from any unverified political story carried by a mainstream media organisation fills me with dread since most of us are so middle class that we find it hard to believe others will lie, distort, or withhold relevant information without the slightest hesitation if it serves their ends. The attitude you need to take when reading anything from an MSM report is the same attitude you might take when buying a used car. Do not trust a thing you are told and make sure you verify everything you can from a separate source.

So let me take you to BorisG’s comments on Michelle Field’s post. And the first one he wrote was also the first one on the thread since one of the basic aims is to structure the subsequent discussion in a different direction. Below are all of his posts in sequence without the comments from other commenters. We will see if we can find a pattern of wilful obtuseness.

BorisG
#2564074, posted on November 24, 2017 at 1:16 am (Edit)
Steve is an amazing partisan hack. Even Trump initially said that the allegations against Moore if true, are deeply troubling. No one knows if they are true but the fact that 30 people gave information to the Post about it suggest that they are likely true. Papers can be sued for big bucks and won’t publish such things without good research.

BorisG
#2564091, posted on November 24, 2017 at 2:54 am (Edit)

Moore is going to win bigly

Ok but according to Steve

The great uncertainty I have is who will be elected to the Senate from Alabama in December.

Who is right ?

BorisG
#2564101, posted on November 24, 2017 at 3:14 am (Edit)
Seven middle aged women not known to each other made allegations and gave their names. Sorry it is hard to imagine they are all lying.

Maybe you also believe the women who accused Trump also lied.

BorisG
#2564363, posted on November 24, 2017 at 11:13 am (Edit)

Boris there is no more leftist communist partisan blogger here than you.

Even though I says the same things about Moore and clinton?

Anyway I see there are enough sane people still left here.

Just a coupe of points
1) it is not accurate to claim that the media only targets the right. The media is busy reporting allegations against all sides, including media itself. Including NPR.
2) I am myself troubled by lack of due process. How do you defend yourself against trial by media? The only way is to sue them but this just reverses the burden of proof, and that is not fair. But no one suggests Moore should be jailed. The people of Alabama will decide in this case.

BorisG
#2564393, posted on November 24, 2017 at 11:33 am (Edit)
And Ivanka Trump. Is she a Democrat? If she was she would probably have distanced herself from her father. Or trump would distance himself from her.

BorisG
#2564398, posted on November 24, 2017 at 11:36 am (Edit)

you think if Moore had an ongoing interest in teens given his profile something would have emerged in the last 40 years,

Yes. But he wasn’t ongoing and he wasn’t a national figure.

BorisG
#2564404, posted on November 24, 2017 at 11:39 am (Edit)
Spacey has had a couple of ‘incidents’

Unfortunately many incidents. Hollywood knew about it. We didn’t.

Let’s face it, politicians will always be held to much higher standard than actors.

BorisG
#2564413, posted on November 24, 2017 at 11:40 am (Edit)
And this thread is a good example the far right are enraged when someone disagrees with them. Good example of tolerance and Christian ethics they pretend to adhere to.

BorisG
#2564439, posted on November 24, 2017 at 11:53 am (Edit)

The entire story was a fabrication,

It is amazing what for Steve and co passes for evidence.

You can take him and others of his kind as just stirrers or contrarians. BorisG is deadly earnest in everything he says without the slightest indication he is interested in an actual debate or in discovering the truth. Fascinating to watch and there is much to learn from what he and others of his kind do. Dishonesty is the trade mark of the left, not that they have a monopoly, but it is a specific tactic aimed at the fair minded who are seldom as aware as they need to be of the practice, and seldom think of the need to guard against the premeditated lies told by the left. Boris G would have to be pretty thick not to know that Michelle Fields was a liar and that her aim was deliberate and strictly political. The interesting part is that for the left to succeed, they can only achieve their ends by lying. For the right, what you hear people say is almost invariably what they believe. The left often mimics the same concerns but it is tactical and never substantive unless for a change good policy overlaps what they see as tactical advantage.

Manson and the totalitarian temptation

Posted on November 21, 2017 by lawofmarkets

Two articles on the very same subject although superficially about entirely different things. There is first this: The Charles Manson Fallacy. The second is: 100 Years. 100 Million Lives. Think Twice.

Here is how the first article ends:

The potential for entire social movements to end up sympathizing with visibly pathological murderers with swastikas carved in their foreheads is a persistent potential. All you have to do is let down, for a brief moment, your simplest sense of right and wrong, perhaps because you pride yourself on being upset about some social issue….

Here is how the second one ends:

The stories of survivors paint a more vivid picture of communism than the textbooks my classmates have read. While we may never fully understand all of the atrocities that occurred under communist regimes, we can desperately try to ensure the world never repeats their mistakes. To that end, we must tell the accounts of survivors and fight the trivialization of communism’s bloody past.

My father left behind his parents, friends, and neighbors in the hope of finding freedom. I know his story because it is my heritage; you now know his story because I have a voice. One hundred million other people were silenced.

One hundred years later, let us not forget the history of the victims who do not have a voice because they did not survive the writing of their tales. Most importantly, let us not be tempted to repeat it.

Read them both, which I took down from Powerline Picks where they appeared separately but at the same time.

TO WHICH WE MAY NOW ADD THIS: Charles Manson’s Radical Chic which comes with this very telling subhead:

Some on the left adored him, before and after the murders.

And this is how the article begins:

The history of the postwar period is the history of the struggle against Communism. What’s sometimes forgotten — conveniently forgotten — is that our victory in that struggle was far from assured, and that a substantial swath of the Western intelligentsia and much of its celebrity culture was on the other side. It wasn’t just Jane Fonda and Noam Chomsky, Walter Duranty and Lincoln Steffens. (“I have been to the future,” Steffens wrote after a visit to the Soviet Union, “and it works.”) Eventually, 100 million people would die under Communism as part of the longest and widest campaign of mass murder in recorded human history. As a phenomenon of specifically nuclear terror, the Cold War lasted from 1949, when the Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb thanks to the help of the American leftists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, until 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down.

Precisely in the middle of that period came the strange career of Charles Milles Manson, who has just died in a California hospital at the age of 83. Manson’s death, like his life, was wrapped up in the radical politics of the 1960s.

He died of natural causes, his execution having been set aside as part of the temporarily successful progressive campaign against the death penalty in the 1970s. Just as it is easy to forget how pro-Soviet the American Left was at times, it is easy to forget how pro-Manson American radicals were. “First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach. Wild!” That was the assessment of Bernardine Dohrn, the champagne radical who, with her husband, Bill Ayers, participated in a campaign of domestic terrorism, including bombings, and later became cozy with Barack Obama, hosting events for the aspiring politician in her home.

An old question of mine: what do you think of the 1960s – all good? all bad? or a bit of both. I know my answer but I’ll leave that for another time.

You wouldn’t want to be distracted, would you?

Posted on November 21, 2017 by lawofmarkets

There’s this.

Eight women say Charlie Rose sexually harassed them — with nudity, groping and lewd calls

THE WOMEN: MEDIA IGNORED CLINTON ACCUSERS…
FOUR MORE?
What if Ken Starr Was Right?

ANOTHER woman accuses Franken of grabbing…
SILENCE OF THE DEMS…
WHISPERS: NO RESIGNATION, NO OUSTER CALLS COMING…

NYT WHITE HOUSE REPORTER SUSPENDED AFTER SEX HARASSMENT CLAIMS…

And then there’s this.

GREAT AGAIN: USA Growth Forecasts on Rise…

UNEMPLOYMENT AT 4.1%, lowest since December, 2000.

And not that it matters but there is also this.

UPDATE: Roy Moore Jumps to 15 POINT LEAD in PredictIt Market as Accuser Accusations Fall Apart

For the Dems, on the other hand, the accusations seem to flower and persist.

You have to be a fool to believe unverified allegations that come from the mainstream media

Posted on November 19, 2017 by lawofmarkets

Remember Michelle Fields? Remember how the media were all agreed that Donald Trump’s campaign manager had thrown her to the ground? Remember how the videos soon after appeared proving she was a liar. Even then the media continued but when the evidence became so obvious that nothing had happened, it just stopped. No apology, no owning up that it was made up out of whole cloth. Just nothing said at all, and on they moved.

So move forward to today and we see not hypocrisy but the continuation of their out and out strategy of lying to harm Republicans in flogging issues which if the same is done by a Democrat there is nothing to be said. No sexual predator in politics is in the same league as Bill Clinton but no Democrat ever said a word while he was in a position to advance whatever agenda the left wished to see advanced. Falling for these things is a massive political weakness on the right. So we are now dealing with Roy Moore over what is certainly a series of lies being told about him in comparison with the visual evidence of sexual harassment and worse by Al Franken.

This is to go with the other photo of Franken pawing the breasts of this same woman. This is from the USO show in which Tweeden had said she had turned away from Franken having had his tongue rammed down her throat in the rehearsal he insisted on having. A predator, and unelectable as a Republican, but absolutely re-electable as a Democrat. This below is from The Washington Post via Allahpundit.

So here is the point. If you don’t want to elect sexual predators, never pay attention to the mainstream media. Donald Trump was among the few to finally get past the inanities of the right voting for their enemies because of some unproven and unprovable allegation by various women about what Donald Trump had supposedly done, which oddly, or perhaps not so oddly, these women had never previously mentioned. With Franken, even Tweeden doesn’t want him to leave the Senate. And you may be sure that if Franken had done this once this was not the sole occasion when something like this has happened.

Democrats have no morals to speak of, only appetites and a will to power. If Republican voters are going to continue to fall for these things time and again, we will be at the end of times before you know it and there will be no one there to defend the moral codes Democrats and their media enablers are using against you to kick you and your values to the curb.

High minded stupidity of the deepest and most obstinate kind

Posted on November 14, 2017 by lawofmarkets

A bit of a conversation on my post on Illogical Negativism. The brutal gormlessness of these people is a trial. PDT must be astonished to see such idiots at every turn, supposedly on his own side who buy the left-agenda cover to cover and who cannot be taught how to do battle. My central point was in dealing with the Washington Post and CNN, “they are liars who count on the complicity and ignorance of others”. This was my conversation online with “Marcus”. He goes first.

Marcus
#2551682, posted on November 13, 2017 at 6:58 pm (Edit)

Yeah…

Look, it’s possible that this is all part of a co-ordinated smear campaign to destroy an up-until-now obscure Republican Senate hopeful. Stranger things have no doubt happened.

But what you also hear in this case is people defending Moore by saying that even if it’s true, no biggie. The Bible says this! The Democrats did that! Seriously, if the best defence of Moore is “If Bill Clinton can get away with rape, so should one of ours” then maybe he’s not worth defending.

If it is a false smear campaign, that will no doubt come out in the coming days. But when people ask why these alleged victims are only waiting until now to come forward, maybe they haven’t been paying attention to what else has been going on recently. Women have waited decades to come forward against Harvey Weinstein. Men have waited decades to come forward against Kevin Spacey. Obviously, the feeling out there is that the time for victims of old crimes to forward is right now, and while that doesn’t mean that every accusation is going to be true, the fact that Moore is supposedly “one of us” doesn’t mean that they’re going to be false either.

So I replied below. Ignorant as the day is long to describe Roy Moore as “an up-until-now obscure Republican” means every bit of this is new to him but is totally unperturbed by his lack of any historical context. But I stuck to the main point, why do you accept the word of your ideological enemy?

Steve Kates
#2551738, posted on November 13, 2017 at 8:22 pm (Edit)

Look, it’s possible that this is all part of a co-ordinated smear campaign to destroy an up-until-now obscure Republican Senate hopeful. Stranger things have no doubt happened.

There would be nothing strange about that at all given how stupid the stupid party is. Everything under the sun is possible, but as David Hume pointed out, which is more plausible, that this event stayed quiet for 38 years and all the events are correctly remembered, or that the woman and her mother have lied to help the Democrats steal a Senate seat? On the other hand, how much press is there about this story: DEMOCRAT Sen. Robert Menendez may have had sex with underage hookers in Dominican Republic: prosecutors. Here there is no end of evidence but with no surprise at all, none of this makes the press, even though his trial is going on right now and the events were only a year or two back. And even where it is reported, how often do you see the party in question named? The issue is not the right or wrongs of what he did, which I would not defend, but whether he did any of it and this is just political lying of the most common garden variety.

Obstinate as well as clueless, back he comes.

Marcus
#2552285, posted on November 14, 2017 at 10:43 am (Edit)

There would be nothing strange about that at all given how stupid the stupid party is. Everything under the sun is possible, but as David Hume pointed out, which is more plausible, that this event stayed quiet for 38 years and all the events are correctly remembered, or that the woman and her mother have lied to help the Democrats steal a Senate seat?

Women, plural. My understanding is that there are four of them who’ve all made similar allegations, and that even some of his ex-colleagues in the DA’s office raised questions over his … uh, taste in women.

On the other hand, how much press is there about this story: DEMOCRAT Sen. Robert Menendez may have had sex with underage hookers in Dominican Republic: prosecutors. Here there is no end of evidence but with no surprise at all, none of this makes the press, even though his trial is going on right now and the events were only a year or two back. And even where it is reported, how often do you see the party in question named?

If that’s true Menendez should be hung out to dry. If your main point is that there’s a double standard in how these things are reported, well, of course I agree with you on that. That doesn’t mean that when these allegations are made against Republicans they’re not newsworthy.

What it does mean is that conservatives should do what they can to ensure people like Menendez face the level of scrutiny they deserve, without risking their integrity to defend people like Moore by coming up with lame justifications for his alleged behaviour (as in the case of the state auditor who used Mary and Joseph to explain why paedophilia is perfectly okay).

The issue is not the right or wrongs of what he did, which I would not defend, but whether he did any of it and this is just political lying of the most common garden variety.

Well, none of us knows the truth about Moore at the end of the day. Maybe he’s guilty, or maybe he’s the victim of a baseless political smear. All I’ll say is that it disturbs me how readily some people will try to defend the indefensible when it suits their side’s political ends. We saw the Democrats sell their souls to protect the Clintons over the last couple of decades, merely to preserve their political power, and now that they’ve lost even that, they’re left with nothing. I’d hate to see the same thing happen to the Republicans, or the right more generally.

My last go, not attempting to get him to see the point, which he never will, but just because you really want to say what an ah and fw he is. This is what I wrote instead.

Steve Kates
#2552419, posted on November 14, 2017 at 12:35 pm (Edit)

Ah Marcus. Such high mindedness! Such honourable intentions! You fight with the tactics you know will work and if the other side knows you are vulnerable to being taken down by fabricated ancient stories from unreliable sources promoted by your enemies, that is what you will see. It is the political equivalent of an IED. To give yourself a bit of credibility here, what you need to do is preface your remarks with something along the lines of,

“Donald Trump is the best thing that has happened in American politics in more than a generation and I would do anything I could to help him achieve his agenda, but this business with Moore is a step too far since even the slightest possibility that he may have done what this girl says he did 38 years ago is beyond the pale and I prefer to see a Democrat take the safest of Republican Senate seats and help sink Trump’s agenda if this is even remotely true”.

Naturally, you would have to completely discount the possibility that they are lying, or even that they don’t quite remember exactly all the details of an event that took place almost four decades ago, and assume that she has no political agenda or wishes to assist the Democrats with their own political agenda. And as for Menendez, or Bill Clinton, or The Lolita Express, yes we are against them too, but in the meantime we must not sully our side with even a hint of any of this even if the probability is close to nil that although none of it can be verified, it is actually an accurate account of what happened almost forty years ago.

If there’s more, I will let you know. The suggested preface will naturally never appear.

Illogical negativism in, logical positivism out

Posted on November 13, 2017 by lawofmarkets

I have a post up at Quadrant Online: Weaponising Illogical Negativism. This is how it starts, discussing the base philosophical creed across the media and the left.

The core principle of logical positivism which underpins verification as the basis for scientific investigation of the truth of any statement:

A statement that cannot be conclusively verified cannot be verified at all. It is simply devoid of any meaning.

This then is the principle of illogical negativism, now applied near universally across the media and throughout the Left. It is the principle that denies any need whatsoever to verify any statement that suits the political outcome sought by the person making the statement or hearing it.

A statement that cannot be conclusively denied cannot be denied at all. It is simply true because someone has said it and conforms to what those who hear the statement prefer to believe.

Let us look a little more deeply at this principle, seen everywhere among the empty heads of the Republican Party as much as among Democrats. No evidence or factual underpinnings are required, only that someone says it and it suits others that it has been said.

Or to put it more plainly, they are liars who count on the complicity and ignorance of others. Now go to the link to see what has brought all this to mind.

Law of Markets

Dedicated to the economics and politics of the free market

Category Archives: Politics on the left