Friday, February 19, 2016

Various Thoughts

Wealthy establishmenters frequently toss the circumstantial ad hominem "whining" around, apparently unaware of the self-contradictions involved. If the claims of people being screwed are whines, what does that make the trivial complaints of establishments?


From The Week on Trump supporters:
Kevin Williamson implies in National Review Online that I am indulging in “racial identity politics to help poor whites feel better about dependency.” Tom Nichols writes in The Federalist that I want to play the “bitter card of victimhood and entitlement that liberals use.” 
Williamson says that he’d rather poor whites “took the necessary steps to improve their condition in life.” Nichols outlines some of these necessary steps, saying these men need “to stop fleecing the disability system, to kick their addiction, to be fathers to their children, to get a job no matter how low or unappealing it is, and to stick with it until you get a better one.” He implies that I’m against this kind of virtue. That’s wrong.
When confronted with the fact that the Republican establishment did little more than engage in treason and rent seeking for decades, the establishment replies with irrelevant, circumstantial ad hominem attacks against their supporters.

A demographic look at Trump supporters:
Slightly over half of Trump supporters are female, about half are between 45 and 64 years of age with another 34 percent being over 65 years old and less than two percent younger than 30. One half of his voters have a high school education or less compared to 19 percent with a college or post-graduate degree. Slightly over one third of his supporters earn less than $50,000 per year while 11 percent earn over $100,000 per year.
Those demographics don't look similar to fleecing and child abandonment.

This leads to a more massive contradiction: the way you get fleecing, addiction, and child abandonment is by supporting the dysgenic, rent seeking, and cultural Marxian policies of the Democratic and Republican establishments. Personal responsibility rhetoric won't accomplish much in the face of those policies.


Establishment political celebrity ranks among the easiest jobs, provided the celebrities are articulate and attractive.

They don't care about cognitive dissonance. Heck, they might not be capable of anything more than slight amounts. They don't have to carefully weigh pros and cons of competing arguments. They don't have to come up with ideas. They parrot the talking points of whatever teams they choose. Dead air time, especially awkward pauses to think, get them in bigger trouble than fallacious opinions.

Arianna Huffington raked in hundreds of millions from her sweatshop website while doing little work herself.

The danger is letting slip something critical of cultural Marxism as Rick Sanchez and dozens of others found out.


Look how emotively powerful The American Conservative is in defending Yemen from Saudi totalitarianism--"wicked," "atrocious," "shameful," "disgraceful," "indefensible." Compare that with their pathetic defense of the West (if they are even defending the West). Perhaps a spin-off magazine, The Yemeni Conservative, is in the offing.

The American Conservative might counter argue that Saudi aggression is causing a large death toll in Yemen. But if you count suicide, pollution, and other deaths from issues largely ignored by The American Conservative, the Western death toll from Randism, globalism, third wayism, and cultural Marxism is much larger.

The American Conservative also tries to blame "the U.S." for Yemen as if we weren't under a non-democratic, occupation government dominated by wealthy global ruling groups, including the Saudis.


Overheard at work
Worker: I met my girlfriend the night we was running a train on her. I hate her. I want to punch her all the time. I want to punch her most when I mix [two drugs I don't remember the names of]. I have a baby with her. I want to punch my daughter, too. But I don't punch them because girlfriend has a good job.

No comments: