A wonderful insight and a related observation

Wow.

‘..The big stuff, wars, moon landings, civilizations, doesn’t matter. Everything has been reduced to the lowest common denominator of personal insecurities masquerading as politics and entertainment reduced to fame for fame’s sake celebrities. All of it is calculated to match the workday routine of a twenty-something female college graduate working in media. Because that is mostly who writes it.
…Our enemies have set out big goals. We must set out bigger ones. We must become more than conservatives. If we remain conservatives, then all we will have is the America we live in now. And even if our children and grandchildren become conservatives, that is the culture and nation they will fight to conserve. We must become revolutionaries. We must think in terms of the world we want. Not the world we have lost.’

Daniel Greenfield

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/this-is-america-we-live-in-now.html

H/T Crusader Rabbit.

That’s an orthodox Jew perspective if I’ve ever seen one and it’s one of the best things to learn from the faith: it fully recognizes the hegemony of Natural Law so a reader doesn’t even have to be of their faith.

It reminds us that Abraham himself was a revolutionary.

Too bad his seed had so much in-fighting, usually involving jealousies and covetousness.

Ike hated by Ish, Jake hated by Esav, Joe hated by his bros, the Israelites hated by the Amalekites, set the pattern that is merely a repetition of what is endemic in the whole of the human race.

The last commandment, thou shalt not covet, were it strictly adhered to, would likey lead to the end of war.

People who admire others and don’t covet what the others have or can do are usually the most productive and loving people I know.

So what do we have now? Western Civilization hated by its current rulers for much the same reason as those revealed in scripture. Hence there is why our governments are also at war with Judeo-Christianity and its scriptures. It exposes how their actions are in parallel with all the evil-doers there.

Hence Greenfield is correct.

Neverending Ploys for Ending Liberty

When I write about fighting the growing despotism, I see, along with many of you readers, how thoroughly the apparatchiks have penetrated our institutions and continue to run our lives based upon an ever increasing pile of lies.

So I often say we can only do that with G-d's help. When speaking to atheists, can that have any meaning? Yes, of course it can. I may imply nothing more than that we must fall back on physics rather than metaphysics, so that "G-d's help" wrings out as:

 "natural law has a way of building tsunamis of reality, like chickens coming home to roost, so that every stack of lies will inevitably be swamped."

Rhetorical question from Og: Like the global warming that has continued not to happen?

Yes, that hasn't stopped them from using The Lie as cover to steal our liberties incrementally.

Following Og's advice, I will continue to write short items like this before my writing skills cause them to grow so large nobody will ever read them.

Principles of Plenty

Below the break is a fine speech. My readers can learn some wisdom from it. But still I sigh. It adheres quite well to Hanlon's Razor.

Benjamin Franklin once observed that experience keeps a dear school but fools will learn in no other.  The last few years in Washington have proved that there are some people who can’t even learn from experience.  

Since we know that there are cronies who have not been harmed by this administration -- in fact cronies who have done quite well indeed -- that a bit more application of Heinlein's Razor is surely appropriate.  Yes it would set Mr. McClintock apart from the majority of politicians. It would not even be much of a gamble because the SKUNCs would undoubtedly attack him for applying it.  But Tom has survived the SKUNCs before, and will likely again. He worked hard to get to Congress, overcoming huge forces who were against him --cough -- Schwarzenegger -- cough-- Karl Rove -- cough. He would seem to have an in with destiny. Maybe the next Treasury secretary?

At some point malice and not ineptitude becomes so obvious, that to be silent on the matter is to go along sheepishly with the lie that the emperor is not naked. The future is begging for the brave, clear visioned. Maybe not today, but tomorrow my friends. Soon.

Whoa: You'll Think You're Dreaming

when you read ‘Mentalist’ Episode Provides Strong Pro-Liberty Message.

In the way this TV show installment plays out, one might think this is long lost Mission Impossible episode. You know the formula: the IMF team foils some despotic third world ruler through guile and finesse exploiting the bad guys' weaknesses, and using the overwhelming resources of a bigger, better government. Back when America was more reliable.

If only real life would play like that.

Hey, enjoy it. This may be all that our postmodernist Hollyquid mavens will allow us anymore.

(The real solution is to band together in a bloc and protest city halls of this kind, using words very close to that of the protagonist. Oh -- I'm dreaming again. Sorry.)

Incrementals -- part 3: Fight to Reclaim Our Language [Updated]

Good news friends.

This evening I heard a promotional ad by Dennis Prager for his radio talkshow.

In it he stated that he bristles when he thinks of how the Left has staked claim to the word progressive. And that it makes it sound as if any who oppose them are anti-progressive. [The following is corrected from before as I promised I'd do.]

He says we on the right ought to change our name "from conservative to morally clear. Why is that any more self-serving than progressive? If you're not for progress you're for regress, right?" [/end update]

Really Dennis? You are still dancing around to their tune. I know you are not really advocating abandoning our not always accurate label (though we could choose a new one for good reasons).

But you are not making the strong case as to why the Left has no legitimate right to call themselves  progressive. It is for the same reasons that they had no legitimate claim to the word liberal (which once, long ago, only meant "pertaining to freedom").

The Left has been engaging in language theft my whole life. It's a form of agit-prop meant deliberately to put their opponents off balance. Sadly this one tactic seems to keep some off balance for far too long and all too easily. Jeesh!

I have no faith that you'll ever hear this, but here is what some long departed great uncle would say to you if he could:

Stop whining Dennis.
You have had command of your own microphone for 15 hours every week for roughly 30 years.
Who else on radio -- anywhere -- has had that much access to the minds of Americans?
You have had an unprecedented opportunity to sway not just opinons on the Right, but national opinion.
Are you the opinion maker you ought to be? Or are you a boychick who runs home crying cuz the bullies stole his counntry's future by claiming possession of an important word?
You don't like that the Left has stolen progress? Well be a mensch and fight to take it back!

Sigh. Well no matter. At the least, Dennis Prager has somehow either caught wind of the meme I started earlier this week or he's independently arrived at the same conclusion -- conservatives need to do something! Sadly, in my view, Mr Prager has chosen a far more difficult way to go to war.

Dennis, you didn't get my memo? It's a lot easier to achieve what you want than you currently are suggesting. We don't have to continue to live with the repressive, regressive Left's dishonest theft of the word progress.

What I do in print is write "Progressives" Incrementals when I refer to them. It's a simple thing really. But it has real meaning as I've explained elsewhere. Don't ask me how I know that this word is important -- I can tell you already sense it too Mr. Prager. I'm just a little blog where maybe a handful of friends will see the idea and run with it on their little bigger blogs. From what I surmise you have the attention of more than 5 million ears each week. You could make a dent in Leftist ownership of "progress" if you wanted to.

Here is what you can do on radio. When referring to them, you can say "the 'Progressives' -- no the Incrementalists actually." And then go on and use the word Incrementalists, and Incremental theft of personal liberty a little at a time, and so on as you refer to them and their actions. Then never use the word progressive again in that session of your talkshow when referring to them. Only use progressive when speaking of wanting real progress, like in job creation, and re-stabilizing our monetary system, and improving home life and restoring traditional values.

When they challenge you -- and you know they will katzenjammer like mad --  point out that the only progress that is of importance to an Incrementalist is what permits him to gain power. Power that is totally self-serving and with which they, as a group, have been demonstrably incompetent. Then go on to demonstrate all the ways it is true. Do you think you have enough material to show that they are regressive, repressive, postmodernist, misanthropic and overall power-mad? Yes, I thought so. So do it!

To make progress against the growing tyranny, do NOT let the Left stay in charge of the narrative. You must fight to reclaim the language.

Oh, and for those who will accuse me of attacking Mr Prager, this demonstrates that I know how he can fire up his delivery quite satisfactorily when his head is screwed on right, and I commend him for it.

-----------------
Posts related to incremental steps:
      Post plus exchange of reveries at Neaderpundit.com: Ever Watch a Leaf...?

Incrementals -- part 2

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am sick and tired of feeling the need to put scorn quotes on the word Progressives. "Progressives" are the ultimate anti-human progress force in the world today, and it really isn't right for them to hang onto the moral high ground that is deserved by right to those who truly work to achieve real human progress.

"Progressives" is one way to make the point that they are regressive (as in turning back the clock), repressive (aiming to restrict individual liberty), postmodern ("future" is so passé), misanthropic (6.5 billion people will be reduced to ½ billion by hook or by crook), and the class of people who think they are the only ones smart enough to deserve the power they seek. Society's self-assessed aces.

But the problem with "Progressives" is

• It doesn't stop them from painting their enemies as "anti" progress rather than anti "progress."
• After a short while the power of mocking the word they chose to describe themselves loses its sting.
• "Progressive" news media and other influential institutions constantly use the word Progressive without a hint of their postmodernism being contrary to true progress. 
• It cedes ownership of the narrative to those we need to defeat.

Back in January I made my first positive effort to stop the hijacking of the word progress by those who make a mockery of the word. I introduced the word Incrementals for the first time.

In retrospect, it seems I was the first to use it in this way. Other words I've coined over the years had multiple authors and so they proliferated. Words like sheeple and republicrats. But it is the self-designated word "Progressive" that still seems to reign supreme when everyone speaks about those who've been scheming for more than a hundred years to incrementally enslave the whole human race.

Today I did a google on the words "incrementals" "progressives." My post on the subject came up as number 1.

About 365 results (0.50 seconds) 

1. Pascal Fervor: Incrementals

   Jan 18, 2010 ... The Sinister Wingers have chosen “Progressives” for themselves. Let us allow that they are Incrementals. In that they are incremental ...pascalfervor.blogspot.com/2010/01/incrementals.html

Yes I did make a contribution to help defeat the rhetoric of the Incrementals. But I've done a poor  job of selling it. Even worse -- I had forgotten to use it!

For someone who believes that the future leadership that can defeat this anti-human squad of perverts has to come from individuals like myself, I have to admit that I make a horrible example. No, not in my ability to think up variations in tactics. Many know I am good at brainstorming. I simply don't fear making an ass of myself. Brainstorming will fall flat and even look stupid a good deal of the time. But if you fear to float ideas, you'll fear floating good ones that you don't know are good until others react to them. Few people are geniuses until they stumble enough for others to realize the genius.


No, my failure manifested itself in my not acquiring the stamina, guts and drive to keep at it day after day. Real leaders WILL do those things that need to be done and then do even more. I've known real leaders, and even still know a few, so I know what one looks like. I fall short. And no matter what, every day I wake up and still don't feel like leading. I'm sure I am not alone. Most of you reading this probably feel the same way. (Still, some of you has a great opportunity to aid decency. Consider learning what it takes to get the drive and go on and become a leader. The risks are high -- but....)

Back to the campaign at hand. It's really simple, much simpler that the long lead-in above.

I really do think, that with the label Incrementals, I've stumbled on a very good and accurate word to describe the not-very-nice people who relentlessly have been seeking great power by gaining it a little bit of the time.

So I will do three more things to help my friends who happen by here to use the word Incrementals as a replacement for "Progressives" every time you write it. I will give you the formatting for 3 different environments so that you may use the words together.

• "Progressives" Incrementals
• <strike>"Progressives"</strike> Incrementals
• <delete>"Progressives"</delete> Incrementals

Together we who use this rhetorical tactic may begin to break the back of the Incrementals and end their theft of the word progress and its moral high ground. The goal is to reclaim it as our own.

---------
Blogger has blown it's ability to detect links to conservative blogs again, so...

Much thanks to Crusader Rabbit for aiding with this campaign: 

“progressives”? nah, ‘incrementals’

Thanks for going out of your way to help KG!

Ignore the Poison; Give Me the Bandaid and Shut Up

After the bailout passed I remained concerned about the role of envy and its exploitation by politicians and business in building the blocks that led to this crisis.

So I did a search to find any stories or editorials that dealt with it. I found NOTHING recent.

But I did stumble upon Henry Hazlitt's On Appeasing Envy first published in 1972.

Tocqueville went on to quote at length from the mutual recriminations of the king, the nobles, and the parliament in blaming each other for the miseries of the people. To read them now is to get the uncanny feeling that they are plagiarizing the rhetoric of the limousine liberals of our own day.

All this does not mean that we should hesitate to take any measure truly calculated to relieve hardship and reduce poverty. What it does mean is that we should never take governmental measures merely for the purpose of trying to assuage the envious or appease the agitators, or to buy off a revolution. Such measures, betraying weakness and a guilty conscience, only lead to more far-reaching and even ruinous demands. A government that pays social blackmail will precipitate the very consequences that it fears.

I hesitate to add my own poorly worded insights in order to update this clear thinking. Maybe later. Meanwhile, read the whole thing and pray that others (or you) can build a strong following who will demand an end to such madness.

Starting a new discussion might flush out the role played in all this by the exploiters of envy, jealousy, and covetousness all the while increasing their own powers and paying no personal price for their misdeeds.

Should we fail to shed light on this poison and bleed it out, but only accept the current palliative to get us past the pain of the current wound, it will remain in our system. Its ill effects are certain to return and then much worse.

Ades to Corruption

aide

–noun
1. nurse's aide.
2. an aide-de-camp.
3. an assistant or helper, esp. a confidential one.

-- from Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

I've long wanted to have a short word that I and others could use that would be an apt label for one who helps forestall or prevent reforms to decadent institutions.

The closest historical word, antidisestablishmentarian, is way too unwieldy to use for reformers to make any headway with.

I initially thought about using the near acronym ADET. This is comprised by taking the first letters of antidisestablishmentarian's two prefixes (Anti and Dis), the the first letter in Establishment and the first letter of the suffix (Tarian). While it has the advantage of a unique appearance, it sounds way too diminutive in speech. Hence I think it sounds far too benign to convey the nastiness to which protectors of bad bureaucracies have been known to resort.

However, the word aide already exists, and the word antidisestablishmentarian is clearly a subset of aide definitions 2 and 3. So, I think I've found my answer.

I propose the semi-acronymic word ade be adopted. It is far less cumbersome a word than antidisestablishmentarian, and so lends itself well to public speaking, and better, to public acceptance. Good public speakers should be able, with proper inflections, to make it clear that they are speaking of ades and not the wider aides. And ade also separates such people from the true aids for our woes, the reformers who we so desperately need to stop the growth of Leviathan.

I intend to speak out in print using the word ade, so I just wanted to prepare the way.

**Update**

A reader has suggested this following line helps drive home the point about how much damage antidisestablishmentarians (ades) make inevitable because ades stymie society's natural defenses. Ades hinder society from reforming needed institutions and thwart her from eliminating unneeded and bad ones.

What AIDS does to the body, ades do to society.

------
Update 2  observation:

The Church of England is still.  Nineteenth Century Antidisestablishmentarianism succeeded. And now, today, given the Archbishop of Canterbury's  willingness to allow shariah law,  what in postmodern politics will keep the C of E from converting to Muslim? Knowing what we know of the cushy relationship between the Left and radical Islam, that is a frighteningly real prospect.

**Update 3**[12/16/10]

TrueblueNZ reader Kris K has suggested that ADE need not be simply a quasi-acronym.  Antidiestablishmentarians may be viewed functionally as "Appeasers, Dunces, and Enablers." ADE can stand as a true acronym.

I think that is a good idea. What remains missing in Kris' suggestion is any reference to the heavy handed thugs who assault reformers. Now since Appeaser and Enabler are much the same thing, I think the following set of three words carry the weight much better:

Appeasers, Dunces and Enforcers (ADEs)

Help Me Defeat Leftist Social Engineers

People generally do not like being manipulated. I believe that the more people understand how they and their neighbors are manipulated the better are the chances that the majority can mount a defense against the divisive, dissembling demagogues.

A long time ago I explained the mechanics of how social engineering works to various technical engineers I work with. Each and every one understood. More recently I wrote an entry for my Glossary in an attempt to make more concrete what I mean by social engineering. Fundamentally it can be expressed by the formula D = LR, where D is dissatisfaction, L is liberty of action, and R is resistance to the action.

Social Engineering is used by those in a position to implement their plans or schemes, or defeat the plans of schemes of someone else, but who are afraid of the consequences should they try and fail. The selling of a political idea more than anything involves overcoming resistance to that idea. Pushing too hard or too fast will anger or scare the general public. When that happens, a large enough bloc of the public is more apt to revolt. Thus most politicians and their backers will only feel comfortable in forcing their plans upon the public when the resistance to the plans are suitably fractured so as not to infuriate too large a bloc.

Hold on. I fear I'm getting too deep too fast once again. Look, if you can find the patience, please try reading social engineering and come back.

What I haven't gotten done in all these years is the simplifying of the concept so that more people can understand. I'd like to break the analogy down into small soundbites that may capture the imagination of more people. At least enough people so that the discussion that might emerge would help the larger body of people be able to foil the most rotten plans and schemes proposed by our ever more arrogant (thinking they can't be stopped by puny, unorganized and ignorant rabble) power-seeking class.

Help me make myself more clear.

Made My Day!

I received a telephone call out of the blue today from a young professional of my acquaintance.

"I thought I should let you know that my wife and I had a daughter about a month ago. I don't know if you recall our conversation, but it was your comments about the influence of death cults that encouraged us to try even harder. Thank you."

I had only just returned from an enjoyable visit to France, and I might never have received his message had he called two days earlier. It's not the kind of thing I'd have left on a voice mail. The trip was nice, but this was wonderful.

I'm in such a good mood, I'll share two photos from my trip.

A double sized bronze sculpture of Charlemagne on war horse with two warrior attendants guards the entrance to Notre Dame de Paris. I noticed that he was glaring at the Préfet de Police across the street. I think Og the Neanderpundit would fit in here.

And here is the rear of Notre Dame that isn't often publicized.

If you'd like a high resolution copy of either photo, let me know.

Some Problems On Our Right

I have since as far back as I can remember been associated with the Right by those who know me. That was primarily because of my archly conservative nature compared within my family and circle of friends. Still, because of familial influences, I considered myself a liberal politically up to 1972. I knew of one vocal conservative in high school, and that was from a distance. My exposure to Right thinking was pretty much limited to warnings from my Dad about using my common sense. What more need be said for the well-rounded (not!) early 60s secondary education on Long Island?

It was in my freshman year at Michigan when the first Teach-Ins were staged that my conservative nature began to kick back in to affect my political viewpoint. But even after witnessing those early Viet Nam war protesters and how quickly they turned viciously anti-liberal on anyone who dared question them earnestly, I was slow to associate their behavior with what liberal politics was becoming.

That was mostly because I was somewhat oblivious to the blow-hards. The presence of the Right on any campus stage was almost non-existent except for the engineering students in general who would turn up for student votes in large numbers and set-back the hopes of the radicals, who were mostly from the school of Literature, Science and the Arts. That is when they weren't "professional students" like Tom Haydn (Did he ever earn a degree?) and others in his chapter of SDS. The campus Leftists would mostly rejoin after every student defeat of whatever anti-war, anti-American resolution they tried to foist with the threat ( I can still hear her raspy whine today) "oh, we will educate you." (It is now too apparently clear what it was they were planning to take over -- everything linked to education. Too bad I was unaware back then of C.S.Lewis' lecture Men Without Chests.)

I started to write simply what is to immediately follow, and decided to fill in the above background first. Go figure how my own mind works. It surprises me constantly. I guess this is the price I ask of my readers if I'm going to write more material.

Some problems I identify on the Right.

• Too calm for our own good. Almost always arguing with a calm facade when it takes thoughts like that expressed by Michael Savage (but too polite or fearful to admit it) to drive many people to act against even the worst affronts by the Left. The Right needs less "country-club rules of behavior" Republicans and more street fighters to be installed in GOP leadership if the GOP is to mean anything. God grant us far less Bushes and at least one more Reagan.

• The Right's kowtowing to the mythical political center voter. Provide leadership and the Right will shift the center to the right rather than letting radical Leftists dictate the march. The Political Center is hardly middle politically since even yesterday. It is left of last week, and widely left of last year. The term Progressive was used for self-description by left-leaning Republicans even before the Dems abandoned their Liberal label (because by their owning it they had made it a dirty word) to try and gain some ground under Progressive (before they brought a pejorative sense to that word too). The Right needs to strip much if not all of the authority it has allowed its Progressives because they keep forcing the party to move Left and thus allowing the middle to shift left. WTF are you saying Pascal? I am saying that our society is being dragged left because the Dems and the GOP Progressives are constantly placating the Left fringe. And then they have the balls to call progressive their stupid responses to anecdotal hardships both real and staged, and their cowardly giving into interest group tantrums and threats of even wilder antisocial behavior. Or is it really stupid and cowardly? I think that perception most heavily depends on which side of the tax bill and liberty infringements you are sitting on. It is hardly news that both government lovers and corporate financiers gain when the central government grows. But the depth of the corruption brings on more corruption because govt's vast inefficiencies guarantee that the bulk of the largess and power will go to the providers of whatever service yesterday's radicals had been given the microphone to ask for. The perpetual charade of responding to radical demands is insane only to the taxpayers, not to the taxers. We are funding our own long term destruction for the short term feather-bedding of those whom we allow to run our institutions.

• Who today on the Right, in a notable leadership position, is arguing consistently at all the last highlighted segment of my last point? It is maybe the biggest problem of the Right that I do not know of a single one.
  

Regarding that last point. C'mon you allegedly brilliant writers on the Right out there: show me how wrong I am.

Those Who Are Beyond Embarrassment

With Roasted Chickens Roosting, Wretchard calls our attention to the continuing self-serving trail of destructiveness that Ward Churchill wallows in. Be careful not to misread the last word in that title as roasting. For it is one thing for us to see dead people who don't know they're dead, and entirely another to continue to let their specter ruin us.

For you see, this is one heluva "cooked goose." A dead chicken come home not just to roost but to tear up the place as poltergeists are said to do to the domains from which they were unwillingly snatched.

Not satisfied with contributing to the intellectual bankruptcy of an academy, Churchill and his fellow travelers will now attempt to fiscally bankrupt it too.

I somehow doubt it will come to that though. Nihilists, having long been nurtured and protected by the Ivory Towers, are expert at avoiding annihilating their own home.

One more thing. Churchill is not at all embarrassed by his misconduct. He derives comfort from the evidence that CU let him slide until his outspokenness brought their hiring malfeasances to the attention of the outside world.

I have often said that the one thing the deepest cynics cannot abide is the possibility that someone somewhere is not corrupted. The corrupt are necessary for cynicism's existence, and so the corrupt are welcomed. But the very idea that innocence could exist becomes terrifying, because the existence of a single innocent becomes a devout cynic's self-condemnation to hell.

God, if there were only some way to sentence Churchill and ilk to life in perpetual embarrassment, it would provide a veritable stake through the heart of such destructiveness.

Oh dear fellow Americans: is it not time to bring back public stocks precisely to weal some small measure of appropriate punishment to such desperately needy reprobates?

The Conservative Voice -- A Great New Beginning

This is a follow on both to the current (final?) defeat of the Senate amnesty bill, and to my earlier post today.

I think the point I am about to make is in the tone of my blog post of yesterday (and noticed by Mark Alger in comments there).

In order to counter the extremely loud voices of our adversaries, you can no longer continue to whisper your displeasure.

You must find your own voice. You must be heard above the incessant din at least once -- then resort to more measured tones. Like a meeting moderator calling a meeting to order, strike your gavel, slam it down if needed.

Hey you. Mr. conservatives. You've been voting Republican for longer than you care to remember. You've been getting less and less for your efforts.

You want a change? Then you will need to change.

If you continue to whisper in country-club voice, you will continue to get country club Republicans at the head of your party. If you want more of your kind, then raise your voice so that the country-clubbers are forced to deal with you.

So blow your loudest whistle, like you're about to miss the most important taxi ride of your life. After you get into your taxi, then you can tone it down.

Take control conservatives.
Today's drubbing of American Leftists and Statists are just the beginning.