Thought Crime

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
1984Arrival.jpg
In 1949, George Orwell wrote his cautionary book titled Nineteen Eighty-Four[1], positing what a world would look like by the year 1984. After all, he’d seen what the trends of Socialism had done to the world around him (in England and the U.S., USSR, Germany, China, and so on). And I'm not talking about just the economic devastation, but the broader cultural intolerance, purges, revisionism and demanding conformity that is a prerequisite to enable Social ownership (and the resulting loss of individual liberty). So he just imagined and documented where the current cultural trajectory would most likely lead, if unimpeded.

Intro

IngSoc.png
BigBrother.jpg
In Orwell's book, IngSoc (English Socialism) would spread and the U.S and England would merge into a tyrannical single-party dystopia, epitomized by Big Brother. Following Socialism’s normal mode of operation, the state would spy on everyone, demand conformance, and use their politically-correct invented language, called Newspeak[2], as a litmus test to validate conformity and capitulation (there was no freedom of thought or expression going on). Any variances from proper uses of the continually shifting terminology (or re-invented histories and word-meanings) was classified as "thoughtcrime"[3]; which meant those perpetrators were worthy of torture and re-education.

Since the shifting history, language and truths were impossible to keep coherent, there would be contradictions between them — but acknowledging those contradiction was akin to blasphemy, so the people were taught to accept them as doublethink[4]: that two conflicting party-truths could both be correct at the same time (even if logic dictated that one must be wrong). This is taken to a climax when the antagonist party-man (O’Brien) is forcing our protagonist (Winston), under torture, to admit that 2+2=5[5], because anyone who is free to admit the truth (that 2+2=4), is not yet a worthy subject to the state. Truth is what the party tells you it is.

While the non-fictional 1984 wasn't nearly as bad as all that, for most people, the parody still had too much truth to it. I’m not as concerned about the loss of privacy (though that has happened in spades). Nor of the unification of Europe under one super-national empire. I’m more concerned with the loss of intellectual thought, and the freedom to question things without safe spaces or people trying to imprison or un-employ you for what you said or think.

In the real-world 1984, I was a liberal kid attending college part time (while working), who wanted to be active in politics. But the more they tried to convince me of "the truth", the more I researched and questioned the mistakes in their alternate reality. The more I resisted the newspeak and doublethink (and offered my research and facts back), the madder the politically-correct got. I refused their fictions, and they hated the truths. That forced me to make a choice between accepting their reality or just accepting reality — thus I was force to evolve from being a youthful “liberal” (which to them meant an intolerant, unenlightened, conformist, conservative-hating enforcer of the party-dogma du jour), to becoming a classical liberal (a free thinking, libertarian’esque, high-tolerance, anti-progressive -or- a radical centrist as I started calling myself). Even the term liberal had succumbed to newspeak and now meant the opposite of what it had meant before. A true liberal could no longer be part of their club: no soup for me.

My childhood was defined by a family that had a malleable relationship with the truth: early on I defined myself by NOT compromising truth for familial affection, better grades, or to stop the beatings, thus the milder comfort of peer pressure conformity (belonging to the clique), or scorn for defending the truth, held no power over me.

Now I’m humble enough to realize I’m probably wrong on at least a few things I believe, but I’m smart enough to know when someone else is bullshitting: dodging, distracting or attacking to bluff their way out of admitting something they don’t like. I also know that it’s highly unlikely that I’m completely wrong in ALL of my knowledge at once. So the easiest way to figure out which side is brainwashed, is to offer nuggets of information and see who can correct it, and who changes the topic, uses fallacies, or attacks me for daring to say it. How they react to data that’s new or they don’t like (or the messengers), is a reflection on who they are. That doesn’t mean they have to agree, but how they disagree is what poker players call, “a tell”[6].

Below is a small sampling of just a few of the various topics where you have a choice of believing the popular opinion that 2+2=5 (Newspeak), or you can go with 2+2=4 (Reality). And the tell is how people respond to your disagreeing with the newspeak, or pointing out the reality — if either generates venom, distraction, pedantic attacks on the spelling or irrelevancies, or anything other than contemplation (and reluctant acknowledgement) of the bigger point, then you know you’re dealing with someone that’s go something going on: more ego than honesty, more party/ideology loyalty than to the truth, or they just prefer their world to the one the rest of us have chosen to live in.

NOTES: (a) This is a living document (unlike the constitution), thus if there’s anything I haven’t thought of: offer suggestions. (b) I know there are examples that cut the other way (against far right ideology), and I might do an article on that smaller subset someday, but this is about the tidal-wave of thoughtcrimes that are enforced by the cry-bullies in social media and in our university safe-spaces (c) I realize some of these are not the most moderate beliefs, but the point is "how do they respond", and what does someone see in the Rorschach inkblot? Do the defend the radical revisionism and newspeak, or an un-moderate form of the truth? Can they accept that the tidal-wave of excrement coming from “progressives” might be agitating the resistance that the media sensationalizes? Or is all the other sides fault for wanting to be left alone, and daring to defend reality over their caricature of it?

You can decide which is real or false, but a warming, if you question others on which is which, you might discover how “tolerant” some folks really are.

Alternate History

There's real history, and the left's history -- they have very little in common. Very little. When I read Howard Zinn, or Karl Marx's view of the world -- it sounds like an average far left intersectional Democrats view of the world. While it has names in common with mine, the facts have been changed to protect the guilty and convict the innocent.
Issue Newspeak Reality
You didn't build that You didn’t create that, you built it on the backs of government. Government built itself on the backs of individuals and the private sector. Without government, we’d still have innovated and created things (including government). But without private innovations and big government, we’d all look like North Korea or Cuba or USSR: drab, grey cinderblock row houses, filled with wage slaves to the state.
Government made the iPhone Government created the iPhone, not Steve Jobs or Apple, proven by GPS Music Player = private. Cell Phone = private. Browser = mostly private. So government gave us what? GPS (Global Positioning Satellites) which was a Satellite implementation of a civilian idea... and it only augment one small feature of smartphones (positioning for maps). And it was still the civilian sector that innovated and made the technology affordable. The private sector pays for government, not the other way around.
Some People Mean old Islamaphobic Donald Trump is trying to get poor Ilhan Omar killed, by showing a video of her saying what George Bush did. In the real world, a racist Democrat said a dumb thing, and the President re-tweeted it because it was political gold, showing how out of touch the far left is with the average American, that they can't even admit 9/11 was Islamic Terrorism, and was a bad thing that shouldn't be politicized by the left or a Muslim, to pretend they care more than everyone else.
40 Hour work week Unions gave us the 40 hour work week. Henry Ford (Capitalism) standardized on the 40 hour work-week, most others had adopted it, and then the Federal Government created a regulation (FLSA) that said we should adopt the 44 hour work week for the very few remaining.
Abortion

(Disclosure: I'm pro-choice first trimester,
pro-life at viability, like most Americans)

Republicans would take away a woman's choice, late term abortions are mostly done for health of the mother/baby, Roe v Wade was good law and protects a Woman's right to choose. Democrats and Republicans are both split on where life begins (and abortion should be allowed), most Americans are against 3rd trimester abortions, and 99% of 3rd trimester abortions are done for reasons other than health of the mother/fetus, and Roe v. Wade was Judicial overreach, and without it, most states would still support 1st Trimester abortion (37 States had already legalized it before Roe, and many more would since): so the fight isn't about choice, it's about how viable a baby should be before we protect it from extermination.
Anti-Science Party

Facts before fantasy.

It's so hard for the superior liberals to have an intellectual discussion with the other side, because conservatives, religion and Republicans are so illogical and anti-science that they can't be reasoned with . Democrats exceeds Republicans on being anti-science on the following topics: 9/11 truthers, Trump-Russia Collusion, Hollywood anti-vaxxers, GMOs, Organic Food, vegans, anti-Nuclear energy, gender is a preference, green energy, economics, "free" anything (healthcare, education, etc), Global Warming / 97%, Fluoride, Bees (Colony Collapse Disorder), fracking, exaggerated scares about obesity, second hand smoke, DDT, gluten, bottled water, alar, salt, fat, sugar, artificial sweetener, butter, food coloring, diet soda, Electromagnetic Fields (EMF), Bird Flu, SARS, astrology, UFOs, Ghosts, reincarnation, fortune telling, Bermuda Triangle, spiritual energy, Ozone hole, gun control works, citizens united conferred corporate personhood and much more.
Bush lied and people died The left pretends that Bush ignored intelligence agencies who were warning him that Saddam did NOT have WMD's, and pressured them to tell him what he wanted to hear. Then he had Colin Powell deceive the public, so Bush could be a puppet of the NeoCons, and attack Saddam for no reason (since Saddam wasn't responsible for 9/11). The intelligence agencies of the U.S. and World's intelligence agencies were all saying the same thing as George Tenet summed it up, "WMD's are a slam dunk". Bush listened to them, and the Democrats screaming for Saddam's head, because Saddam had sponsored and shielded terrorists, was a brutal regime that was killing ≈100K people per year, and Iraq had violate the terms of the cease fire that ended the first Gulf War. Afterwards we did find WMD and illegal facilities, but production was mostly dormant. The reason for Saddam's boldness was that the U.N., Russia, Germany and France had been illegally trading weapons for oil, and had promised the U.S. wouldn't attack as long as the oil kept flowing.
Christian Nation The Separation of Church and State in the Constitution is absolute: we must stop prayer in school, any references to God (on our money, pledges, national anthem's and so on). Anything religious is bad, unless it's Islamic, or is making fun of religion. Like it or not, the history of the nation was build on Christian values. Separation of Church and State was an opinion of Jefferson, and the first amendment allowed the free practice of all religions in school and government buildings. We allowed States to have official religions when the constitution was created -- it just wasn't the feds power/responsibility to create a national religion. Perverting the first amendment to disallow the free practice of religion is a late 20th century invention by historical revisionists.
Civil War and Slavery The civil war was started over Slavery. It is far more complex than the black/white caricature:
  • The first shots in the civil war were fired over taxes and tariffs (Morrill Tariff), not slavery
  • The Corwin Constitutional Amendment (passed by Congress) offered the South to keep slaves forever, the South declined
  • The South offered to give up slaves if the North let them go, the North declined
  • If the North offered Compensated emancipation, the civil war wouldn't have happened
Climate History CO2 is causing the climate to warm, we’re near a tipping point: 97% of scientists say so. And the earth is doomed if we don’t accept carbon taxes, green energy and stop using fossil fuels immediately. The Green New Deal would be our salvation. Even free speech shouldn't apply to Climate change deniers, with efforts to arrest those scientists and pundits that disagree with the newspeak The climate is changing because it’s always changing, the models are inconclusive. Science isn’t consensus and the studies that claim consensus are junk-science. Since the climate models are undeniably broken, and CO2 has been proven not to be as much of a forcing factor as expected, we’re near an all time low in global temperature, warming has historically been good for humanity, and those screaming the loudest have a history of being wrong. We need to study more before overreacting: and fossil fuels have done more to decrease pollution than to harm us. And many famous scientists think this stuff is overblown. You don't win scientific arguments through suppression of facts/arguments you don't like.
Death Panels Democrats and their media (and fact checkers) denied there was such a thing as a "Death Panels" in the ACA, and accused the Republicans of lying, calling it the lie of the year in 2009. Democrats were campaigning on the idea that the ACA had a panel of 15 (called IPAB) that would make life and death decisions over what treatments would be covered, and that would lead to huge savings and even balance the budget. When this panel was eliminated in 2018, the decried the end of the panels they claimed never existed.
Dropping the Bomb

Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

Japan was about to surrender, and all of Truman’s cabinet warned him not to drop the bomb, but he did it anyways to intimidate the Russians. Japan wanted to negotiate a conditional surrender since before the war started, but even after two Nuclear Bombs and the threat of more coming, they still had 3 attempted Coups’ (kidnappings of the Emperor) to try to prevent him from surrendering because they wanted to fight on.
Fascism

National Socialist Workers Party.

Fascism is a right-wing ideology, and the Republicans are fascists. (Other than they have nothing in common, weren't conservative, traditionalist, for individualism, separation of powers, they still had virtually nothing in common with the American right: ideologically). The National Socialists were a branch of crony-socialism and unionism called Syndicalism, they were anti-banking, believed in big-central government, high regulation and taxation, collectivism, central planning, social programs, they were for BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction the Jews), and for gun-control. You can have a hard time telling one of their speeches from the far left. Really hard.
Military industrial complex

Iron Triangles.

Ike (Eisenhower) warned us about the military industrial complex, and that the military was spending all our money. If it wasn't for the war-hawks, we'd be able to spend enough on social programs to make this a utopia: that's where all of our money has gone! Ike warned about an iron-triangle, where politicians colluded with government and industry to dupe taxpayers out of their money and liberty. Today the poverty industrial complex (Social programs) are over twice as much spending as the military at the federal level (that bigger when you add state and local), and military spending as a fraction of our budget has come way down since Ike. Most of our money is being wasted on poorly administered wealth redistribution failures, and worse run Socialists Medicine, that not only didn't achieve their goals, but made the problems they touched worse.
Native American Genocide A lie I hear repeated too often by the ignoranti, is that Americans committed gennoacide against Native Americans... like they used smallpox laden blankets as an example of that: we intentionally exterminated them. That was based on a letter from one Brit to another, 24 years before there was a Constitution or country of USA, it was during a war with the Indians, and most Indians had been wiped out by disease and wars, over the prior 300 years (via the Spanish). The USA had little to do with most of the deaths.
Origins of the Internet Al Gore and DARPA created the Internet. Most of the technologies and features we know and use on the Internet were created, improved and adopted by our private sector decades before the Internet. The reason it was created in the U.S., and not one of the socialist countries, is because of our private sector, otherwise everyone would be on France’s Minitel.
Slavery White privilege is because whites held the black man down for so long, that we need to end racism by blaming everyone who is not-black and forcing them to pay everyone who is black, to make up for past wrongs that had nothing to do with them. We also have to have a censor symbols and history that we don't like, like the Confederate Flag. More whites were enslaved than blacks. American whites died fighting a war to end the slavery that Europe had given to us (and the country inherited before it was created, but ended). Their sacrifice deserves reparations. Slavery couldn't have existed without the many blacks colluding with it, and is certainly not the fault of the majority of whites, asians and latinos who never had slaves or supported it, or came to America generations later. And while doctoring history is popular among the left, how can we learn from the past, if we criminalize discussing parts of it, or doctor the record?
The Jungle Upton Sinclair was a great investigative journalist who went undercover in Chicago meat packing plants, and discovered gross, unsanitary conditions that lead to disease. When he exposed this, we created the FDA and made the world a better place. A failing socialist author wanted to write a political propaganda book, and semi-fictional hit piece called, "The Jungle". While it was debunked at the time, pro-Government types used it as an excuse to create the precursor to the FDA, which has become a boondoggle that's killed or hurt more people than it has helped, or the alternatives.
War America is always wrong in War, unless Democrats started it and mismanaged it. If it undermines us, then it must be true: Bush Lie, Iraq was over Oil or was never a threat, Saddam was our guy, North Vietnamese just wanted peace, Israel started it, we didn't need to use the bomb Japan, the one thing all these things have in common is Democrat (or leftists) championing the cause. One of the reasons the left is thought to be Anti-American has to do with selective hypocrisy on American Wars. They might cheer for the War at the start (especially if Democrat Presidents are for it).... but then they undermine American interests and support our enemies in the end. Virtually all negative (and incorrect) war tropes have leftists at the forefront of the cause with a megaphone, and often Soviets or other American-hating backers behind them. Years or decades later when you show their trope was false all along, they deny, make excuses, or attack anyone for defending the facts.

Inequality

Of course there is inequality and injustice in the world, and even in our nation. But by and large, we're in the top handful of countries in the world as far as tolerance and diversity, in every dimension. But the progressive left is addicted "progress" (change), not balance, or knowing when to stop/slow/moderate. So no matter what progress is made, they have to ignore it, exaggerate the wrongs and the potential for government to fix society with a few laws and a little more intolerance towards that with which they disagree -- until they get to the point where their views are a caricature of reality, and a delusion. That only they are virtuous, and those who disagree in any degree, are not (and thus are enemies).
Issue Newspeak Reality
Rape Culture

Fake Rape.

We have a rape culture, with 1 in 5 women raped in college, then the system rapes the victim again! Women deserve to always be believed: they never lie, or have political agendas. Men deserve to have their lives ruined without evidence. Two drunk people having sex, means the man is guilty, since neither was sober enough to consent. One rape is too many, but the actual number of all sexual assaults in the general population (or rape in college) is about 0.14% (or 1/150th as large as claimed). About 2-10% of all rapes are later classified as false accusations (5x the norm for false crimes). The media loves to sensationalize these salacious stories, and colleges have a guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude, as evidenced Duke Lacrosse and other cases. And you get what you incentivize: and right now, Women are rewarded with intersectional victimhood status for making these claims (true or not).
Gender Dysphoria Sex/Gender is a choice or preference of each person. While calling people by their preferred pronoun gives respect to a person with a psychological malady (Gender Dysphoria), we can't really change our sex. We can butcher our genitals to look like the other, and take hormones, and have intercourse with the whomever we want -- but we can't change our chromosomes, bone/muscle density, some physiology (height and even brain structure).
Gender Wage Gap

The Wage-war on Women.

Women make only $0.77 for each $1.00 that men make, because of the misogynistic, women-hating, he-man-club, where sexist pigs run the matriarchy. When Women are fresh from school they earn as much or more than men, once you adjust for things like occupational choices, experience, employment gaps, hours worked, any pay-gap evaporates.
Homophobia

Disagreeing with any gay activist.

Everyone that opposed gay-marriage or any pro-gay agenda are homophobes that are worthy of ridicule and scorn, because everyone knows that marriage is a civil-right, this was just like anti-miscegenation laws, and Prop-8 in California was all because of Mormon’s running adds to inflame the other bigots. While I support gay marriage, most people I met or knew who opposed it, supported civil unions or deregulating marriage completely (with no history of problems with and often supportive of gays). Marriage just has special spiritual meaning and multi-thousand year tradition. Marriage is not a federal issue, and for those who know what the words mean, is certainly not a civil right: it's just a tax/legal status. And Prop 8 passed in California because of minorities supported it more than whites.
Institutional Racism

The system is against poor brown people.

Racism is everywhere just look at OJ Simpson, Rodney King, Henry Louis Gates, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Anton Sterling, Philando Castile Eric Garner, Sandra Bland and so on. Cops are murdering black people for no reason. The SPLC claims hate crimes are up. Atrocities happen to innocent minorities every day. We need the federal government to stop this! While the Democrats did create many racist programs in the past, and it is far from perfect today, it generally favors minorities (institutional racism against Whites and Asians). Anyone familiar with the stats/math knows the lie that blacks are gunned down disproportionate to crimes. Those victims are usually examples of dumb people winning stupid prizes. Whites, asians, arabs or latinos would have been gunned down in the same situation. And the reason they are newsworthy is because they're so rare. The reason bad examples make News, is because they can't find better examples. The SPLC is an example of leftists scaring the gullible for money.
Racism, Sexism, Homophobia

Bigots are everywhere!

Any cause the left disagrees with on race, gender, sexual preference, is because the other side is just racist/sexist/homophobic bigots. Bigotry ('isms) is judging entire groups superior/inferior, not personal attacks on individuals or disagreements on policies that might favor one group over the others.
Social Justice Warriors

Virtue: only one side has it.

We are in an age of unprecedented injustice: racism, sexism, transphobia, oppression are everywhere! As demonstrated by college rape culture, the war on women, rampant police abuse of minorities, poverty and various inequalities that we need the SJW’s to guide government to force us to be better. Without them, the minorities would be oppressed, and we'd collapse into a corporate racist slave state. While there is injustice, we are one of (if not the) freest, wealthiest, and least discriminatory countries in the world, with the most opportunities for people (even minorities that come from countries where they were the majority), and our government and laws are a reflection of that, not the cause of it. Government is the wrong tool to fix injustice (in most cases), but a great tool to create it. And the left is addicted to change, not balance, so they're often on the wrong side of issues (in degrees). Acknowledging any of those truths would end the far left as a movement, and replace them with mature moderates: so they must live in an alternate reality where the exception is the norm, and the norm is the exception -- and demand it of everyone else.
Transphobia

Disagreeing with any trans-activist.

With no trans-people ever causing a problem, North Carolina is such a bunch of rednecked-bigots, that they invented a law to ban trans-people from using the restroom, they need to be more tolerant towards LGBT culture... like San Francisco. Which still has hypocritical laws against bath houses and oral sex. Also, being male has no advantages in women's sports. After multiple abuses by creeps exploiting trans-friendly laws in other cities (and no cases of local abuse against Trans folks), Charlotte activists ignored warnings and passed a law saying creepy guys could use Women’s bathroom. The State overrode that dumb local ordinance by saying trans-people had to legally change their gender on their drivers-license/birth certificate before they got a free pass, and private companies could do what they wanted.
Virtue Signaling Minorities and the left have the moral high ground. The right isn't just uninformed, they're evil, racist, sexist, misogynist bullies that want to "Make America Great Again", by reversing all the wins of the left like Civil Rights, Feminism, gun-control, progressive taxes, education, and so on. Politics isn't just about different ways to make things better, it's about right and wrong, and the other side isn't right. Society wins when society is ready to make new laws or oppose old ones: not because of the laws themselves, but because of the will of the people to live up to them them. (And not before). Most of the "win's" of the left, were not clear wins, certainly not because of the left alone, and certainly not because they were pure. Virtue Signaling is about getting attention, virtue itself is about silent action.
VoterID and Voter Fraud

Protecting Democracy

The left wants to protect Democracy, and the right wants to undermine it. There's no problem with voter fraud. Since there are no convictions it must never happen. And demanding ID at a voting booth is just a way to oppress minorities and poor people who can't afford ID. Voter fraud swings elections. The left has gotten caught bussing people to other areas, ballot stuffing, encouraging illegal voting, discouraging legal voting, and the crux of the left's argument is that 3rd world countries like India can require ID to vote, but it's too big a hardship for Americans (who need ID for almost every basic service)?
War on Women

Birth Control.

The evil right wants to take away Women’s Birth-Control, right to choose (abortion), are sexist pigs who treat women poorly and want to keep them as oppressed sex objects. The majority of the right is fine with birth control (as long as people pay for their own), the USA's most restrictive abortion laws are more tolerant than most of Europe (or the world's), and the left has a rich history of worse behavior towards Women.

Leftonomics

There's real economics, and the left's version (Leftonomics) -- they have very little in common. Real economics is about observing what is, and learning from it. Leftonomics is about ignoring what is, and believing whatever cultural Marxism has taught you and that you wish was true. Usually some variant of America/Capitalism is bad, and government authoritarianism would be better.
Issue Newspeak Reality
Financial crisis of 2007-2008 We were under-regulated by removing Glass-Steagall, and it was the greed of Wall Street that inflated the bubble, and under-regulation made the banks “too big to fail”, so the taxpayers “bailed them out” and gave them money for fat bonuses and sheltered them from any consequences. It was all the Republican or evil Jewish Greedy Bankers fault. We had more regulations than ever in history, the crisis was created by bad regulations like CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) and community organizers inflating a real-estate bubble of high-risk toxic loans, when that bubble-popped, other regulations (banking equity laws and FAS-157) magnified the resulting credit crunch and froze financial markets. We LOANED the banks money to get their liquidity up enough (short term) to unfreeze equity markets, and once everything stabilized, they paid all the money back (there was no net loss to taxpayers). No one has ever explained how Glass-Steagall could have stopped it, or why it hadn't happened in Europe/Asia without them ever having Glass-Steagall.
Green Energy The left believes in Green Energy: that it exists, it's cheaper, and could provide all our power needs, if we just embraced it. The facts (Science) says that Solar and Wind is unreliable, space inefficient and highly expensive if you remember to add in the costs of over-capacity, backup plants, and storage (for when they aren't working). The cheap and reliable forms of Green Energy are: Nuclear, Hydroelectric and Geothermal: but the left hates those and has resisted the adoption of real green energy solutions.
Income Inequality

Vanishing middle class

Because of lowering tax rates on the top few percent, the poor and middle class has suffered, wages have stagnated while the rich got richer, and income inequality has grown so everyone earns less than they did 40 or 60 years ago, except for the top few percent. Through accounting tricks the charlatans leave out non-accounted for benefits to prove a fraud: they don’t count social programs, adjust for family size decreases, non income benefits, deferred income (retirement, lifestyle and free-time improvements), purchasing power increases, technological advances, IRS collection compliance/changes, income mobility, quality of life, and so on. If you omit all those things, then the poor have still gotten richer, just by not as much as the rich have. The problem is our far better lifestyles cost more money than the more modest one of yesteryear.
Keynes Keynes was a Micro-economist who thought we could tax ourselves into prosperity. All of his Macro-economic theories were proven wrong by history, and explained why by Hayek. Since the left believes in Socialism and doesn't believe in history, they still think that real Keynesianism has never been tried. Economists can't agree on anything, other than that Keynes was wrong. If it worked, then governments that spent the most would be the most successful. We could have spent our way out the Great Depression (it made it worse), Obamanomics would have worked (weakest recovery in history), there would have been a post-war depression (boom instead), there couldn't have been stagflation in the 1970, Communist China/Russia/Venezuela/North Korea would have been successes, and the free market China/Russia/South Korea would have been disasters.
Minimum Wage

Labor costs

Minimum wage hasn’t kept up with inflation, and we can just raise the minimum wage to give a “living wage” to the millions of working poor, with no negative consequences, it’s only been the heartless and greedy conservatives that refuse to allow this (because the less the poor have, the more they have). If it wasn't for Democrats the Republicans would make everyone wage slaves because they're only out to help the rich. Minimum wage did keep up with inflation, most minimum wage workers are teens and elderly or part-time supplemental jobs, and there’s no one wage that would be equally fair in NYC and rural Idaho at the same time. Economists know that raising the minimum wage is the same as increasing discrimination against the least skilled or experienced: increasing the costs to hire, will reduce hiring (increase automation, offshoring, etc) and increase the cost of goods. The people championing minimum wage are failing to point out that if you un-employ many, to help a few, and drive up the costs of goods and services by more than you help, then no one is really coming out ahead.
New Jersey and the Economist

The Red State/Blue State Myth

The left thinks that the Red States get more back in taxes than they contribute, while the Blue States are the opposite. This is based on a misrepresentation of a left wing article in The Economist. You can't take money out of a state, send it to DC, have some wasted and a fraction sent back with overhead and regulations, and somehow come out ahead in the equation. That's not how math works. Think compliance costs, borrowing, debt obligations, federal work rules and so on.
Obamanomics v Trumponomics Left view: Obama saved us from the Bush recession using Keynesian $1T stimulus that was on infrastructure, he created millions of job and lead to a booming economy. Trump on the other hand is ruining us with deficits, trade wars and stock market swings. The only reason Trump saw any goodness at all, was lingering effects of Obama (Obama tried to take credit for the Trump economy, and blamed Bush for the Obama economy). The recession was caused by Democrat real-estate policies. Obama's wasteful spending and regulation lead to the softest recovery since the Great Depression. Most measurements, total employment, GDP, consumer confidence, number on government assistance, were all in malaise levels. After Obama predicted we were the best we were going to be, markets would crash under Trump, and we'd never see high GDP growth, Trump started enacting tax cuts, de-regulation, and some market protections -- and the economy took off. (With a slight hiccup after Dems took the house in 2018, and the Fed raised interest rates to cool growth). Despite those head winds, total employment and minority employment hit best levels, ever. Number on government aid plummeted. And we hit GDP growth that Obama predicted we'd never see again.
Rent Control

Punishing housing suppliers

Rent Control helps the poor or middle class combat rising costs. Rent Control tells landlords to stop doing improvements or maintenance, since those re-investment costs can not be recouped, thus it harms quality. It tells developers not to build more housing (by capping returns on investment). So since it drives down availability, the costs for everyone else go up (by far more than the savings to the few it helps). Supply and demand: it's not just a good idea, it's the law.
Socialism Socialism is great, just look at Nordic countries. Nordic countries aren't socialist, they are having major problems, and if you look at all the Socialist countries around the globe (North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba), and throughout history (Cambodia, Vietnam, China, USSR, etc), there are those that sucked, and those that are going to suck. Cherry picking is great for pies, but lousy for learning from life.
The Broken Window Fallacy The left believes that vandalism can stimulate the economy by forcing spending. Breaking a Window destroys something of value. The Glazier might win, but the victim and his customers, all lose. There's no net win there.
The Great Depression The left believes that the Great Depression was caused by capitalism/Wall Street and Hoover fiddled while Rome burned. Then FDR came in, gave us the new deal, and everything was good because he saved the day. All bunk. What happened is Hoover saw some of it happening in New York, and warned FDR about it (who was in NYC), but FDR didn't react. When it crashed Hoover did spending and wanted to do more to lessen the bank failures, but the Democrats resisted any mitigating factors because they new ruination would lead to regime change. FDR gave us the New Deal, and it didn't help, and in fact contributed to the second depression (depression in a depression as it was called), so he offered a New New Deal, and that didn't help either. (Government spending and dramatic changes scares investors/businesses). Then the war happened and saved FDR. When the war ended the Keynesians wanted another New Deal to prevent a post war recession, but the country had grown and resisted. And instead of the Keynesian predicted recession, we got a post war free market boom instead.
Trickle Down Economics The left thinks the rich are Scrooge McDuck, and convert all their cash to mountains of Gold, and roll around in it. Which is why they mock Trickle Down Economics (aka economics). The only things you can really do with more money is give it away (create jobs), spend it (create jobs), or invest it (create jobs). The left doesn't believe that the rich will do any of those things.
Unintended Consequences We can fix X by just doing Y, it's simple, just throw money at it. What could go wrong? The left always has the best of intentions, and ignores what the road to hell is paved with. Historically there are more failures of big-government than successes, and every action has a reaction. Progressives look for all the good that one of their things might do, without considering any of the bad or how people might adapt. Otherwise, the wouldn't be progressive but thoughtful conservatives.

Alternate Liberty

There's real liberty, and the left's version (Alternate Liberty) -- they have very little in common. Real liberty is about arguing with people who don't do what you want, but letting them do it anyways. Telling them not to say things, or arguing against it, but letting them do it anyways. It's about championing your causes, by trying to win in public opinion, not using the tyranny of the majority (50%+1 of votes) to force laws or authority to take away their right to do it. Remember, a law/regulation/tax is the point where a bully says, "do it, or I'll have this government goon take you property, liberty or life".
Issue Newspeak Reality
Anti-American The left claims to love America on one hand, and that's why they criticize it continuously on the other. It's racist, sexist, imperialist, capitalist (spit, ptooey), minority killing, gun toting, inequality, full of ignorance, God, Guns and bigots. Protests against liberty, gays in assless chaps, wars (national interests), foreigners waving foreign flags and demanding the end to America as a county? Those are all good. But protests against too much government waste, too high of taxes, regulation or government power (Tea baggers), or pro-lifers trying to protect viable infants from the abortionists canula and scissors, or just a wholesome 4th of July Parade celebrating Americana? Those are all bad. But they love America? Of course the truth is that the left doesn't love America in a healthy way, and take pride in what we've done or are doing. Many feel unclean at signs of jingoism and patriotism. Think about it as if they are an abusive spouse -- you love them as they are, that's why you want to criticize them constantly, break them down and destroy their self-esteem, so that you can remold them into something else (better). That's not love, that's something else. They don't love what is, they love having something to criticize, vent at, and take their frustrations out on -- but will never meet their standards. But in trying to meet their standards, everyone would get a lot less freedom to be individuals.
Corporate Personhood

Citizens United

The Citizens United case invented the concept of Corporate Personhood (that corporations are people), and that's allowed the buying of our elections by corporate interests. We must limit the first amendment for there to be fair expression (individuals to be able to out-shout the corporate interests). The concept that individuals don't lose their rights by belonging to a group (corporation) goes back to Persian law, and has always existed in American law. This ruling only said that Unions, Government, Churches, marriages and other "corporations", would all be treated the same (instead of allowing politicians to decide which get free speech or not). Before and after CU, Unions and special interests continued to outspend corporations on political donations
Democratic Tolerance The lie: I’m a broadminded metropolitan lefty (liberal): that’s enlightened, tolerant and open to new ideas, and loves freedom. The Truth: they’re narrow-minded, urban-provincial, progressives. They avoid rural areas, red-states, Christians, conservatives, Republicans and “rednecks". If you don’t agree with them, you must be a “FoxNews watcher”, a Republican, or someone who hates the poor. They demand conformity of not only act, but thought. They pass laws and regulations to stop people from doing anything they think is “bad”, which is everything they disagree with. When linguistic intolerance of political correctness wasn't enough, they invented speech codes.
EPA The EPA is this great and noble institution that protects our environment, if it wasn't for them, we'd live in squalor and pollution. Most of the cleanup work had been done by the states long before 1970 and the creation of the EPA. In fact, the rate of cleanup slowed after the EPA was created. Once the fed was doing it, most of the states and municipalities felt, "I gave at the office".
Eighteenth Amendment The left doesn't trust individuals to rule themselves, so they sold society that gun-control for alcohol (prohibition) and outlawing individual liberty would change people's behavior. It didn't. And since this was the progressive era, where people were ignoring Historical warnings on federal overreach, they were making many modifications to the Constitution. This anti-conservative/anti-individualism amendment got passed as leading us to a better society. It succeeded at empowering criminals, creating a profitable black market, teaching contempt for the law and dramatically increased crime. Which gave the left excuses to empower the federal government more to combat the lawlessness, and start gun control over the insurrection that the left had created. It disempowering the law abiding, and turned otherwise good citizens into criminals. Basically it ruined far more lives that it ever helped. The progressive left got the change they wanted, and as is too common, it was a disaster.
Eighth Amendment For 200 (or 2,000) years, the Death penalty was not considered cruel and certainly not unusual. Until in 1972 (Furman v. Georgia) the left wing of the court used that Capital Punishment was being applied too infrequently, as an excuse to invent that the "arbitrary application" was Cruel and Unusual, and thus against the 8th Amendment, and overturned all Death Penalties in the U.S. Because if you can't win through legal means, just cheat and make shit up. Of course the arrogance of 5 Judges thinking that they knew more than all the other Judges who had ruled on death penalty cases in our nations history, as well as the authors who wrote the law (and didn't exclude death penalty when they did), is unfathomable. 37 states quickly made made the rules for applying the death penalty less "arbitrary", and less unusual (more common), and even a few of the left side of the court had to reverse themselves, and respect the Constitution. Thus capital punishment was allowed again. But the permanent damage to the court (and trust in it), was done.
FCC The FCC is this great and noble institution that protects our airwaves from anarchy and bandwidth collusion While the excuse is not in dispute, the reality (lie of omission) is they were created for more reasons than that, and they've done a lot more than that.
FDA The FDA is this great and noble institution that protects our food and drugs from anarchy, quackery and food poisoning While the excuse is not in dispute, the reality (lie of omission) is whether it does a good job at any of those things, and whether it is worth the costs compared to the better alternatives.
First Amendment The left loves freedom of speech, the Press, Religion, and right to assemble... Unless you're talking about Global Warming, hate speech, or Christians trying to pray (or not pay for other people's abortions), or a conservative us trying to talk on College campus, or a right wing organization is buying a TV ad during a campaign (Citizens United), or anything else they don't like... and they don't like a lot.
Fourth Amendment We need the power for the government to violate your home, privacy and rights, based on sketchy warrants or secret (no-fly/terrorist) lists that you can't see the details of, issued after some secret tribunal decided you were a threat. Oh, and there's no clear process to appeal those accusations (in the case of no-fly lists). That should make you feel secure in your home, right? There's no evidence that the red-flag (or no-fly lists) that strip individuals of your constitutional rights, actually does anything good. We have evidence that they get people killed, and certainly make them feel less secure, knowing that at any time, for unknown reasons, they might be red-flagged -- and the accusation of threat to public safety will outweigh your civil rights. That's what governing by fear would look like.
Gun Control The 2A was about the militia, applied to muskets, and not allowing "reasonable" gun controls is the cause of our higher murder/crime rates, especially assault rifles, and it's all the NRA and gun-fanatics fault The militia was all men, they had fully automatic weapons in the 1700's, and it was never about muskets, we have over 55,000 gun control laws that annoy legal owners and do little to stop crime (lots to increase it), our murder/crime rates are better than most of the world, assault rifle is an invented term by people that don't understand guns, and the problem is there's no way to reason with someone who has a phobia of clowns, or their neighbor having the liberty to own a gun. Both are irrational.
Party of fear We need government to protect us from ourselves. But Republicans/Conservatives are the party of fear: they try to control their constituents with fear of immigrants, Iran getting the bomb, criminals so they need guns, and trust in government. They need to be more reasonable, like us All the scares of the left have proven false: over-population, lack of food production, peak oil, destroying the planet (see many more in the anti-science category). People solved most of those on their own, or they were never problems (at least to the degrees claimed). Democrats try to use fear to control the weak-minded as often (if not more) than Republicans -- for example: why would you need gun-control, if you didn't distrust your neighbors having guns?
Second Amendment The left hates and fears guns and individual liberty, thus everything about the Second Amendment. Since they can't repeal it, they just want to undermine it, breaking their oath of office (to defend the Constitution). If you think guns kill people, then of course you want to eliminate all guns. Since those truths aren't popular, they must lie and pretend they're not against all guns. But they are. And the informed know it. If you know the basics of guns and how they operate, you know that the left has yet to offer a "reasonable" gun control. Every idea for restricting a natural right/freedom only sounds reasonable to the uniformed, but are based on a complete lack of understanding about guns, human nature, crime, the law, and the consequences of their policies. The politicians actively oppose things that might help because doing so would weaken their agenda to eliminate more guns, or to get elected by campaigning against them.
Sixth Amendment We need the right for the government to violate your 4th and 6th Amendment rights in Kafkaesque secret hearings, so they can take away your 2nd Amendment rights, in order to protect you and the public from things that someone you don't know, might accuse you of. There's no evidence that allowing secret proceedings to strip you of your constitutional rights, actually does anything good. We have a lot of evidence that they get people killed, have been abused on small scale here so far... and on very large scale in other places, once this power is solidified. So we have a case of huge risk, low reward, and the left is for it because "guns" shuts down the thinking side of their brain.

Alternate People

There's real people, and the left's version of people -- they often have very little in common. Very little. I'll hear one of my lefty friends, or watch a left-stream media channel and hear their version of something, and compare it to reality and realize, that they have the same names as the person I know, they have a completely different history. Some events/actions omitted, others imagined in. It's like we live in parallel universes, or they're perpetually tripping on LSD.
Issue Newspeak Reality
Abraham Lincoln Honest Abe, great progressive President and statesman, who fought for equal rights for blacks, freed the slaves, and the Democrats wish he was theirs. (I do too). Started a war over a punitive tax policy and not wanting to bear the brunt of Compensated emancipation, that got 600K Americans killed, tore the nation apart, shat on the Constitution, he was an abolitionist white-supremacist who didn't think of blacks as equal but more like the ASPCA thinks of animals: an inferior species need to be protected by a superior one.
Bernie Sanders He's a nice democratic socialist, which just means he wants us to be more like Socialist Scandinavia, but he's honest, moderate, and successful. He was a radical socialist and a failure, that has accomplished little but figuring out how to mooch off a hippie state by telling them he was their man to get the free stuff (take stuff from others). Scandinavia is far from utopia, and they are not socialist. And he’s a bit two-faced, like he plays anti-war, except for his support of the wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo, and for the F-35 or any military program in his state. He talks the working man, while he made millions off the government and has multiple homes. And so on.
Donald Trump He’s a a dumb, racist/bigot/homophobe, liar, that hates immigrants and encourages violence in his rally’s. The obnoxious billionaire is smarter than Obama. Anti-ILLEGAL immigrant. He married and hired more immigrants and than Hillary and Sanders combined. He's less racist than Obama. Anyone that cares about violence is either more livid with the Democrats for paying thugs to disrupt Trump rallies, than at Trump for saying he'll pay the legal fees of anyone defending themselves against one, or they're hypocrites who can be ignored.
Hillary Clinton Hillary was a noble lawyer, accomplished Woman who advocated for Women her whole life, that everyone is charmed by, but the vast right-wing conspiracy keeps inventing conspiracies about her to try to make her look bad. She is the crookedest person to ever get the Presidential nomination. She was kicked off watergate, attacked a rape victim or all the Women her husband molested, had a dozen scandals of her own making like cattlegate, whitewater, troopergate, IRS abuse, filegate, giftgate, lootergate, vandalism, pardongate, chinagate, Clinton Foundation, emailgate, Benghazi, and many that had worked with her admitted she was a repeated liar and not a nice person to work for. Until she won as Jr. Senator of NY (for being married to Bill Clinton), she had few good accomplishments on her Resume.
Michelle Obama "every single day … I wake up in a house (the White House) that was built by slaves", she was "proud of her country for the first time" when Barack was nominated. If you've never been proud of our country, then you're an ignorant or partisan moron. Oh, and the WhiteHouse was not built exclusively, or even mostly, by slaves. A few slaves worked on the project (at the end), but were paid labor. It was the House from whence mostly white folks fought and died to end slavery, and we all have to pay for her to live in that house (so we’re more slave to her, than she is to us). The left gets almost everything wrong, and divides us doing so.
Progressives Progressives see other progressives as good (by ignoring all the ways they aren't). And they see those that resisted progress as bad, luddites, or vile (by ignoring the ways they aren't). They beg every question by knowing that they are morally superior to the other side, and by being unwilling to consider the ways they might be wrong (well-meaning dolts, unwilling to consider the consequences of their actions). They idolize folks like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Martin Luther King Jr., Margaret Sanger and so on (and get angry at those who point out their idols flaws). There's no moral high ground in taking other people's property, keeping a cut, and giving a percentage to your cronies or constituents. Teddy was a blowhard war-monger. Wilson was a racist pawn of corporate interests. FDR was one of more corrupt Presidents and nasty human being. MLK was a philander and a hypocrite. Margaret Sanger was a vile eugenicist. And so on. The world is a lot more nuanced, and people a lot more complex than the caricatures painted by leftist historians. Since truth is seldom on their side, those who speak truth are their mortal enemy.
Sarah Palin She’s so dumb, she said, “you can see Russia from my house" That was Tina Fey. When asked in an interview about foreign policy experience and the proximity of Russia to Alaska, Palin replied, “they’re our next-door neighbors, and you can see Russia from an island in Alaska”. (Which is true). She went on to explain that she had just negotiated the largest ever Native American, Alaskan and Canadian oil treaties, which gave her far more successful foreign policy experience than Obama or Joe Biden had.
Senator Joe McCarthy

McCarthy got McCarthy'd.

A mean-guy started an evil witch-hunt to bully and ruin the lives of innocent people, based on scant evidence (a fake list), by preying on the gullibility of red-scare paranoia. The whole thing was made up, and all blew over once people realized McCarthy was a fraud, and there was no communist threat. Communists had infiltrated the incompetent FDR and Truman administrations, and got us to help in the fall of China, helped Soviet Imperialism and then get the secrets of the Bomb, and had undermined our national interests. We'd known for years, but the administrations were complicit in obstruction of justice and cover-up because they didn't want the embarrassment of the truth coming out. And when the whistle-blower McCarthy started showing how bad it was, he had to be destroyed, and history needed to be rewritten.


Conclusion

In George Orwell's 1984 Newspeak is using the sanctioned language that meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism (Ingsoc). The idea is that if the progressive democratic socialists control the language, they can control the thoughts behind the language. So the purpose is to restrict free thought (and prevent thoughtcrime), by restricting free speech down to defining the language and defining out the improper history and facts that are not allowed. This ever shrinking vocabulary of acceptable words, is so asinine that the only people who will accept it are those participants are fully programmed until they can accept Doublethink (simultaneous opposing contradictions) like 2+2=5. If that's what the state tells you, then you speak it, because the alternative to denying their political correctness is gruesome torture.

Sadly, Orwell's writing was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual. But the far left, uses it as the latter. If it was just the annoyances of political correctness, I could roll eyes and ignore. But it is altering people's understanding of history, the present, the future. How they see their friends, family and neighbors who aren't seeing the world through their distorted lens of good = believes the left leaning media, versus bad = skeptical of fake news, or skeptical of the versions of history they were taught in indoctrination camp (e.g. schools, universities).

GeekPirate.small.png

2016.06.10

Alternate RealityThe Left LiesThought Crime : Alternate HistoryInequality • Leftonomics • Alternate Liberty • Alternate People • Alternate Science