Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains
In Chicago and other leftist precincts, tonight is the night of the voting dead. But all across the land, tonight is the night of the garbage people wandering from hill to hollow, from shanty to shack, hands out, attired in trash bags, loosed upon us by dementia in high places.
Trigger Treat!
Substack latest.
With Halloween upon us, it is appropriate that I should present to my esteemed readers for their delectation if not horror the scariest passage in Kant's magnum opus:
He most certainly is on the Orwellian subversive's understanding of 'democracy.' For what they mean by it is elite-globalist oligarchy.
Although Maverick Philosopher has been on-line for over 20 years now, its third incarnation, this Typepad version, first saw the light of day on Halloween, 2008, 16 years ago. I thank you for reading.
Although the heyday of blogging is long gone, the peak having occurred near the end of the aughts, I bump along at a somewhat respectable level especially given the austerity of my offerings.
Beat back better!
Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. Should Trump win, do you think our political enemies will accept the result, acquiesce in a peaceful transfer of power, and resolve to work harder next time? Expect a post-election temper tantrum:
Democrats have warned the country that Trump is a “danger to democracy,” a fascist, another Hitler. But it’s the Democrats who use the threat of violence to turn the election in their favor. “If Trump does win the election, the left in America will certainly riot,” says author and political commentator Douglas Murray. “They will make sure cities they believe they dominate go up in flames again.”
And they’ve apparently been considering the insurgent option for months. Jonathan Tobin wrote in the Federalist in February that Democrats “need a backup plan if the courts won’t do their bidding” to keep Trump out of the White House if he wins by “doing exactly what they labeled as ‘insurrection.'”
“A Trump victory would almost certainly set off bloody riots in every American city,” he said.
Hell hath no fury like the Democrats who won’t allow a peaceful transition of power.
Douglas Murray is a sensible and astute commentator. Be sure to click on the internal hyperlink.
Stack topper. On the Hillarious Trump = Hitler Identity Theory.
How now, sad cow? Your cud is bitter, your pasture lonely, and your days short. You are neither stupid, nor ignorant. So why the cheap smears and asinine comparisons? Are you bent on destroying what little of your legacy remains?
Originally posted 5 November 2012. Slightly redacted. Things are far worse now.
………………………………..
The Dems are the left-wing party in the U. S. Almost all Dems nowadays are leftists. It's not 1960 any more and you geezers out there with your sentimental attachment to the 'Democrat' label need to wise up.
1. Leftists lack common sense. As witness their lunatic stand on photo ID at polling places. I have written several posts on this topic. Here is one.
2. Leftists play the race card every chance they get. There is plenty of evidence in my Race and Leftism categories.
3. Leftists, also known as 'liberals,' are anti-liberty. As witness Obamacare's individual mandate, to give just one example.
4. Leftists have a casual attitude toward crime. See Britain and the Barbarians and other posts in the Crime and Punishment Category. They oppose capital punishment even though this is exactly what justice demands in certain cases. With their unhealthy and immoderate love of underdogs, leftists champion criminals while ignoring the concerns of decent citizens, even when the criminals are responsible for their 'sub-canine' status. Conservatives stand for the rights of the accused, due process, and equality before the law. Leftists distort and subvert these high principles.
5. Leftists smear their opponents and then issue hypocritical calls for 'civility.' What passes for argument among them is the hurling of SIXHRB epithets: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, racist, bigoted. (acronym via Dennis Prager) For example, if you oppose illegal immigration then you are a xenophobe; if you carefully argue against Obamacare then you a racist; if you give reasons why marriage is between a man a woman you are dismissed as a bigot. If you oppose the slaughter of innocent human beings which is abortion you are waging war against women and interfering with their 'health care' and 'reproductive rights.' If you point out the very real threat of radical Islam, then you are dismissed as an 'Islamophobe' with a mental illness. And then there are the inevitable Hitler comparisons and the repeatedly thrown F-bomb, 'fascist.' 'White supremacist' and 'white nationalist' are other terms of abuse hurled scurrilously and without definition.
6. Leftists are weak on national defense and naïve about foreign policy.
7. Leftists are fiscally irresponsible. Unlike his predecessor, Obama made no attempt to put the existing entitlements on a sound fiscal basis. Instead, he started up a new one!
8. Leftist are anti-religion.
9. Leftists have no proper appreciation for the Second Amendment.*
10. Liberals have no proper appreciation of the Tenth Amendment and the notion of federalism.
Addendum: Tony H. writes to say that I forgot one:
11. Liberals are economic illiterates.
True. Of course, I wasn't trying to give a complete list of reasons to oppose Obama and the whole leftist gang. There are a lot more reasons than ten. How about this one:
12. Liberals are linguistic hijackers. They routinely distort the English language for their ideological purposes. This is actually worse than lying. To lie successfully one must use language properly, in accordance with the going conventions. Misuse of language is a subversion of the rules of the communicative game. There are examples in my Language Matters category.
One particularly egregious example is the use of 'voter suppression' to refer to common-sense demands for proper ID procedures at polling places. This shows that the scumbags of the Left will do anything to win. "The end justifies the means." Right out of the commie playbook.
For even more reasons, see The Constructive Curmudgeon who has worked himself into a fine, and justified, lather over Obama's abominations.
_________________
*In 2012 one might still say that if leftists showed as much respect for the Second Amendment as they do for the First, gun ownership would be mandatory. But now in 2024 things are far worse, as I said at the top. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and the rest of their scrofulous globalist-totalitarian ilk are gunning for the First Amendment too, as you must know if you have been paying attention.
This is a re-post from 6 November 2012. Since then, I have found no reason to alter my position. Perhaps you can supply me with one.
……………………..
Did you perchance vote for Gary Johnson for president? Then you wasted your vote on an unelectable candidate and helped Barack Obama's re-election.
The truth of a view does not depend on its popularity. But the political implementation of a view does depend on the electability of the candidate or candidates who represent it. If politics were merely theoretical, merely an exercise in determining how a well-ordered state should be structured, then implementation would not matter at all. But politics is practical, not theoretical: it aims at action that implements the view deemed best. Someone who votes for an unelectable candidate demonstrates by so doing that he does not understand the nature of politics.
Even if Johnson is electable in the sense of (i) satisfying the formal requirements for being president, and (ii) being worthy of the office, he is not electable in the specific sense here in play, namely, possessing a practical chance of winning.
When one votes for any unelectable candidate one merely squanders one's vote. If you are a libertarian, then your views are closer to those of Romney than to those of Obama. By voting for the unelectable Johnson, you help someone win whose views are diametrically opposed to your own instead of helping one whose views are partially consonant with your own. Now that is stupid, is it not? It shows a lack of practical sense.
If you won't vote for an candidate that does not perfectly represent your views, then either
A. you are a utopian who fails to understand that politics is about action, not theory, in the world as it is, as opposed to some merely imagined world; or
B. you falsely think there is no difference between the major party candidates.
The same reasoning applies to those who vote for Jill Stein. You are wasting your vote on an unelectable candidate. You are making a statement all right, but nobody cares and it won't matter. But I hope you lefties do vote for her: you will be helping Obama lose.
Addendum 10/28/2024. As you may have noticed, Jill Stein is back! And so once again I hope you lefties do vote for her: you will be helping Harris lose.
By Peter Kalis. This list, reproduced here verbatim, receives the plenary MavPhil endorsement. I will only add that the first item in the order of listing is also the first in the order of importance.
1. I believe a nation that doesn’t take its borders seriously doesn’t take itself seriously.
2. I believe in a Reaganesque approach to foreign policy. That is, peace through strength.
3. I believe in an independent Supreme Court whose decisions are grounded in the Constitution and statutes it is asked to apply. From the ascension of Earl Warren as Chief Justice in the mid-1950s and for a half century thereafter, the Court acted as a super legislature and handed down a continuous thread of left-leaning decisions with little or no foundation in the Constitution. In response, Republican leaders did not seek to pack the Court or impose term limits on its Justices, as Democrat leaders routinely do now.
4. I believe that merit, not immutable characteristics like skin color or gender, should drive personnel and admission decisions and the distribution of governmental largesse.
5. I believe that biological males, however they might identify, do not belong in girls’ and women’s sports or in their locker rooms or restrooms.
6.I believe that excessive government spending results in burdensome taxes, mountains of debt, bureaucratic bloat and inflation.
7. I believe that overregulation imperils innovation.
8. I believe that many institutions of higher learning have dangerously replaced an emphasis on critical thinking with ideological conformity.
9. I believe that toleration of anti-semitism on American campuses and elsewhere is a stain on American history and that aggressive support of Israel against its enemies is in our national interest and is justified by an informed view of the history of the Middle East and the Jewish people.
10. I believe in a growth economy and that the “secular stagnation” heralded by the Obama Administration undercuts opportunity for all Americans.
Long live the Republic! Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. This an excellent time to be investing in precious metals in the broad sense of the term. Au sits at $2738/oz at the moment. But Pb has come down in price. Stock up. Catacomb Joe reminds us of the old Boy Scout motto: "Be prepared."
Here:
Jerry Wartski, a 94-year-old Holocaust survivor, says that Kamala Harris comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler is "the worst thing I have ever heard in 75 years living in the United States."
"I know President Trump and he would never say this, and Kamala Harris knows this," he told the New York Post.
“Adolf Hitler invaded Poland when I was 9 years old. He murdered my parents and most of my family," he said. "I know more about Hitler than Kamala will ever know in a thousand lifetimes."
"She owes my parents and everybody else who was murdered by Hitler an apology for repeating this lie."
"He's a mensch," he said about Trump.
Kamala Harris is a contemptible, truth-hating know-nothing, and anyone who would vote for her is a contemptible, truth-hating know-nothing. I hope we can all agree on that.
For more on this delightful, heart-warming topic, see J. D. Vance's response to CNN's Jake Tapper.
UPDATE 10/28
Sasha Stone, Meet the Real Fascists
Pat Buchanan writing in 2018 made the case for tariffs. But only the Orange Man can implement them.
Here. The title claim begins at 3:05. His explanation of the claim is cogent, and I fear he is right. 'Interesting' times, these. Who could be bored?
UPDATE 10/28: Elon at the Trump MSG rally.
It may be a bit OTT in places, but I agree in the main with Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano's Open Letter to the American People on the eve of the 2024 presidential election. (HT: Catacomb Joe)
And here's Tucker Carlson to get your blood up. (HT: Vito Caiati)
WARNING: Should our side win, expect violence from our political enemies. Never underestimate the depths of the Left's depravity.
Abstaining from voting would be consummately stupid and would amount to the old mistake of letting the best become the enemy of the good. I'll say it again: in the politics of the real world, the choice is between better versus worse, not perfect versus imperfect.
A columnist at The Remnant gets it right (edits added by BV):
The basic (and fallacious) argument for why Catholics [and other Christians] should not vote for Trump is that he has softened his opposition to abortion. The stated principle [assumption] here is that a vote for Trump could [would] be wrong because it is [would be] a vote in favor of abortion. The proponents of this position know that a Harris presidency would mean countless more abortions, and likely many more late-term abortions, but this does not matter to them — all that matters [to them] is that Trump does not oppose abortion in some instances.
The folly of this position should be self-evident, but we can see its true wickedness if we apply the reasoning to an extreme fact pattern. On the one hand, we approve of Trump’s positions on many issues that Christians care about, including that he: supports families; wants to protect our rights to freely practice our religion (Catholicism); opposes crime; opposes the weaponization of the government against the American people; opposes globalism; opposes woke indoctrination in our schools; and wants to keep men out of women’s locker rooms.
Suppose, on the other hand, that Trump’s opponent is so terrible on all of these positions that she actually wants to do the opposite. Not only that, but she makes a virtue out of abortion, such that she champions it rather than simply condoning it in limited circumstances. Even worse, her dedicated opposition to Christian values would make it almost certain that she would persecute Christians like they have never been persecuted in America. America could feasibly become one of the most anti-Christian nations in the world outside of Muslim and Communist nations.
In such a case, it would be absolutely preposterous and wicked to argue that a Catholic should not vote for the only candidate who has a chance to beat the anti-Christian candidate. If anti-Christian persecution comes, then we hope God will provide what we need to persevere; but it seems that we cannot effectively petition God’s mercy if we do not do our part to oppose one of the most anti-Christian presidential candidates in history.
There is no such thing as neutrality at this phase of the battle over traditional morality and the rights of families. Those who oppose Trump are, as a matter of indisputable fact, making it more likely that Harris will be able to impose her anti-Christian views on America. Many of her supporters enthusiastically support this prospect of an anti-Christian president, and she has obviously not tried to do anything to meaningfully mitigate this reality. Those who detest Christianity should definitely support her; and those who do not want to increase the level of anti-Christian hostility in America should instead vote for her opponent. And even if we convinced ourselves that Trump would not win, we show God that we want to prevent a dramatic increase of anti-Christian evils in America if we vote for him as the only candidate who can defeat Harris.
With these considerations in mind, Catholics have a more compelling case to support Trump now than we did in 2016 or 2020. Of course we wish Trump would be more perfectly aligned with our interests, but his task at this moment is to try to win an election rather than try to be the ideal candidate for conservative Christians. Even so, he is arguably “more Catholic than the pope” and those who tell Catholics that we should not vote for him are either deluded or trying to manipulate us to serve Harris.
2 responses to “Three Lockean Reasons to Oppose the Destructive Dems”