Has There Ever Been a True Venn Intersection Between the Leftist Worldview and the Worldview of the Constitutional Right?

I'm thinking that a true agreement between Left and the rest of us to pursue a common goal has occurred only in times of war, and specifically WWII. The currently devastated Democrat party is showing that it has nothing in common with a free people, and is focused on forcing the entire populace into a single worldview: theirs. That Trump does not share their worldview has kept the Left in a state of insane fury ever since the minute he was declared winner.

Insane fury is, in fact, a component of the Left's tactics, a showy form of self-righteous virtue declaration. That in turn is a consistent part of Class War, and the identification of friend vs foe vs necessary victims.

The "class" issue was responsible for the elimination in France, 1791, of the feudal system. The proposition of a compromise within which both a monarchy and in which a free people could exist, caused the revolution to begin. By 1793, the Left had taken control, and the Reign of Terror began.

And that recalls the original "Left" from the "virtuous" massacres by the French Public Safety Committee's guillotine. Called the "Reign of Terror", the terrorist government of the French Revolution went around France executing their known enemies as well as suspected enemies. The concept of "Leftism" was born in totalitarian massacre of its own people, those of France. And it was justified in the term, "public safety": no one could be "safe" until all of the enemy were beheaded. What could be more virtuous?

So from that start and through the following centuries, the French Revolution and its "virtues" became icons for leftist revolutionaries world wide.

As he sought to measure progress of the Russian Revolution, Lenin often compared it to the Great 18th Century French Revolution. Speaking to a congress on adult education in May 1919, he said, "Take the great French Revolution. It is with good reason that it is called a great revolution. It did so much for the class that it served, for the bourgeoisie, that it left its imprint on the entire nineteenth century, the century which gave civilisation and culture to the whole of mankind. The great French revolutionaries served the interests of the bourgeoisie although they did not realise it for their vision was obscured by the words “liberty, equality and fraternity”; in the nineteenth century, however, what they had begun was continued, carried out piecemeal and finished in all parts of the world."

"Everybody who studies history seriously will admit that although it was crushed, the French Revolution was nevertheless triumphant, because it laid down for the whole world such firm foundations of bourgeois democracy, of bourgeois freedom, that they could never be uprooted."

The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen was quoted later by the revolutionaries of Vietnam, including Ho Chi Minh, when they made their own "Declaration of Independence from French colonialism in 1945.

Lenin emphasized that in Russia they had carried the process of revolution a big step further: "In a matter of eighteen months our revolution has done ever so much more for our class, the class we serve, the proletariat, than the great French revolutionaries did."

And what class does the current Leftist serve? Claiming blacks, women, and many previously defined mental disorders as Victimhood Classes sounds virtuous to those who need such a class for political gains. From that start the Left has not proposed to ever equilibrate such minorities successfully into assimilation, but to forever use them as unequal, incompetent, unable to compete with whites - who succeed only due to the massive, racist, (etc) monolithic cultural machine which is perpetually devoted to suppression of non-whites. Forget that many of those minority members do, in fact, enter the machine and succeed without the help of the Left. (Help from the Left results in "tokenism" which works against all minority members).

A blatant example of non-intersection is the RadFem refusal to accept either transwomen or black women. And the current war on whites and "whiteness" is the removal of any commonality of euro-americans with any/all Victimhood Groups.

There is no common Venn area of intersection for the cultural stability needed to provide peace/opportunity in the populace and a common worldview, provide a set of common objectives, and provide conditions for the treatment of individuals.

Disagree? Then list the areas which are common to both the Left and Right. And forget things like chocolate and puppies; I mean actual political/cultural and personal development issues.

There is no Intersection Between Left and Sanity

Discussion Activity on AtheoLeftism

There is comment activity at the Atheism Discussion (left column).

How the Left Describes Their Inverted Reality

You'll have to read it THERE to appreciate the absurd Leftist universe in which such contraries seem "true":

Dean Obeidallah on Nikolas Cruz: ‘Everything He Spewed Was Consistent with the Trump Agenda’

They're Trying To Get Their Slaves Back

Slaves Don't Own Guns

The Fascists, They Swarm

You Forgot Fascist - They Loved Hitler

Yup.

Paraphrasing Jefferson: The System is Expendable

Sometimes a broken system must be entirely scrapped, ground up, burnt and buried. Otherwise the systemic corruption acts to corrupt everything.

Thomas Jefferson; A Complete Statement

The Jefferson Memorial bears only half of one of his sentences.

Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.

This immoral truncation would imply that "these people" will become Americans in a culturally assimilated ethnic sense, purely by relieving them of their slave status.

Here is Jefferson's full paragraph:

“The bill on the subject of slaves was a mere digest of the existing laws respecting them, without any intimation of a plan for a future & general emancipation. It was thought better that this should be kept back, and attempted only by way of amendment whenever the bill should be brought on. [Note 1 Cf. post, with Notes on Virginia in this edition.] The principles of the amendment however were agreed on, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain day, and deportation at a proper age. But it was found that the public mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor will it bear it even at this day. Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it, or worse will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent would fall far short of our case.”

Because people exist in distributions rather than unitary coherences, many have and will assimilate. Jefferson, however, lists three reasons that some, even many at the opposite side of the distribution, cannot assimilate: nature, habit, and opinion.

Assimilate into what? The white population has the same issue: Leftists cannot assimilate into the principles of individualism, liberty, common decency, or lawfully living under the US Constitution.
[Triggered by Brimelow at VDare]

No Intersection Between the Left and the Deplorables.

If one were to make a Venn diagram of the principles and attitudes of the Left vs. the Right, on no principle of importance would the circles of interest intersect. They are mutually exclusive, and unless one side gives up some of its principles in order to expand its domain enough to intersect with the other, there will be no commonality. The split is unbreechable.

The SOTU given by Trump was presupposed to be a step toward conciliation. By observing the demeanor and actions of the Left side of the aisle it is obvious that there is no subject upon which the Left will ever give over to Trump - or the Right side of the aisle. They are not the honorable minority; they are the insurrectionist resistance.

So grim and angry was the demeanor of the Left, that one of them, Gutierrez, ran out when chants of USA! filled the hall. USA? Even the existence of an individual nation called the USA triggered him to seek safety from the thought. Pelosi's face was completely embittered the entire time, and the Left rarely even acknowledged what Trump said, sitting stonily stoic.

USA nationalism vs. Globalism. Managed borders and immigration vs. no borders at all. Anti-racism vs. racializing activism and baiting. Leading from forward vs. leading from behind. Strengthening the military vs. feminizing the military. Defining treaties fairly vs. emasculation of the USA in order to favor competing nations.

None of these intersect.

Because Trump has emphasized Law, Order, Constitutional respect, has championed both industry and small business, has survived every attack on himself and the nation, all that the Left has is seditious dreams of ousting a sitting president, even forcibly if necessary, declaring him incapable. All as they frothily and insanely scream epithets. Never programs. Never positions. Never anything nationally beneficial. Pure epithets. Even the Schumer DACA "compromise" was an insane insult, assuming the president to be so stupid as to not realize what he was agreeing to.

Unless Trump relents on principles, there can be no intersection between the deranged Left and Constitutional law, order and tolerance. Because the Left cannot be wrong - ever - and their godliness cannot be defiled by external law, order and tolerance of the deplorables, their positions are rigidly destructive. Being moral arbiters, a function of being gods, which they of course are, any outside mores are rejected and the adherents classified as a) Oppressors, b) subhuman, c) disposable. (Disposability is fully exemplified in abortion, focused on minorities). The existence of the Antifa terrorist thugs, replacement for the KKK terrorists of the Left, and the punch-a-fascist attitude, all these are indicators of the mindsets of the Left.

Until the Left re-acquires at least a semblance of rationality, losing the idiocy of a Pelosi claiming the tax cuts to be first a crime against America and second "crumbs" in the face of demonstrable, empirical reality, there can be no actual conversation due to the derangement.

So, why try? Until the Left becomes civil and sane, why even bother with them? Let them shriek and wail and be ignored (except for entertainment value).

Just wait until Trump declassifies the Nunes memo. The shrieking will be deafening.

When Leftist Criminals Infest the FBI

“This was an effort to pre-bake the cake, pre-bake the outcome,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a House Judiciary Committee member who attended the McCabe briefing before the holidays. “Hillary Clinton obviously benefited from people taking actions to ensure she wasn’t held accountable.”

Saul Alinsky: Any means not taken is the most unethical of all means - "Rules For Radicals", p26.

For This To Make Sense, How Stupid Do You Have To Be?

LGBT as Revolutionaries in Pursuit of Raw, Irrational Power

From Spiked:

This year, however, the LGBT movement has turned to the dark side in earnest. The corporate, governmental and celebrity bullying of North Carolina’s decision to forbid people with penises using public toilets designated for women might prove to be significant. And now, this week, news comes that businesses in New York City will face fines under a new law that makes it a violation of someone’s human rights not to use their preferred gender pronoun. Henceforth, employees, landlords and businesses who refuse to refer to transgender people with terms such as ‘ze’ and ‘hir’ will be in violation of the New York City human-rights law.

‘Where will it end?’, you may ask. To which the answer is, ‘it won’t’. Christian churches will be next in line, then gender differentiation in schools and hospitals. Those who fight in the name of liberation will always demand more, even when the revolutionary movement has surpassed the boundary of reality into fantasy – in this case, the state enshrining in law, with penalties for those who disobey it, someone’s belief that ‘he’ is a ‘she’ because he simply believes it so.

The impetus for change and the desire to seize power is inherent to revolutionary movements, whether they be communist, Nazi, Islamist, trans or animal rights. Once human beings become subordinate to abstract notions of equality and the future, people become expendable. ‘The future is the only transcendental value for men without God’, said Camus. Thus revolutionaries must forever meddle with the present, because tomorrow never comes.

Rational folks are starting to catch on to the underlying tyrannical motives of every single Leftist movement.

Raw Power and Moral Condemnation

The video in the previous post takes us to the root of the massive, shrieking irrationality of the Left. At one point, Jordan Peterson cuts through the flak and reaches the basis for all of the posturing and squealing which characterizes Democrats and the Left: Power. Power through false moralization and moral condemnation.

This has been particularly acute during the final days of the Tax Bill, as it approached acceptance. There being no actual moral case to be made, the Left – including Pelosi and Schumer – fabricated evils which did not and do not exist, and made constant public displays of “moral” outrage at the false "attacks which the Republicans were making on" … well, on the helpless but holy Victimhood Class.

By keeping the focus of the MSM sycophants on the faux moral outrage rather than the facts of the bill, the Left was exerting the only remaining power which it has to keep their own troops from defecting.

This relates to the use of moral outrage to control. Moral outrage is power. When one cannot force the Deplorables into gulags, then the Deplorables must be controlled by the power of outraged moral condemnation. It doesn’t matter what the specifics of the moral principle are. What matters is whether the outrage works to the favor of the Left.

That is the explanation for the bizarre positions which the Left takes: each position must be the opposite of whatever principles or beliefs the Deplorables have. This constant inversion of morality is necessary, absolutely necessary, in order to be morally outraged that the Deplorables are against the all-new Leftist moral inversions. Other than morally inverting Deplorable’s historical morality, the Left has just the one fundamental principle: Attain Power, all of it. Hillary was supposed to have done that. She actually cut the Left loose.

The Left could not generate moral outrage and condemnation by using the historical morality of the Deplorables. If they used that morality, they would have no power whatsoever. It is absolutely essential that they invent new principles which are direct contradictions of the historical Deplorable morality.

And that explains not only the lathered, blithering histrionics of the Left now that it has no other power (even in the deep state, it now appears). It also explains the complete anti-rationalism which attaches to the moral outrage approach to power. It explains why the Left uses Classism: to focus moral outrage on the Oppressor Class.

For the Left, any tactic is moral if it produces power over the Deplorables. And that explains things such as body trails. Body trails were acceptable to Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Castros and Che, and now Maduro (the current example of the power of the Left to destroy the populace, especially opposition).

Alinsky must be laughing in his grave.

Consider these Leftist inversions:

Abortion. Inversion and denormalization of the value of human life by use of a Kill Class.

Homosexuality. Inversion and denormalization of heterosexual monogamy and family.

Gender Spectrum. Inversion and denormalization of binary biological sexual identity.

Racism and Anti-whiteness. Inversion and denormalization of classless society.

Multiculturalism/Intersectionality. Inversion of acculturalization and exceptionalism of western freedoms.

Equalitarianism. Inversion of individualism and merit-based rewards.

Triggers and Microaggressions. Inversion of traditional tolerance of differences.

Trump Derangement Syndrome. Inversion of rational assessment; power through moral outrage, false attributions and name calling (Ad Hominem Abusive).

Secularism/Humanism/Atheism. Inversion of the traditional cultural principles of Christianity and its influence on Western social and intellectual structures in Western nations. Substitution of the Leftist State as the source of everything "good".

Marxist Class War. Inversion of populism via the installation of messianic rebels and constant "revolution" as the power structure.

How Africa Disappeared

The Zman:

Elephants

The reason for this is Africa, in particular, stands as proof against everything the modern Left says about the human condition. There are no success stories in Africa. Botswana is the closest you get, but it remains one of the poorest places on earth. The rest of Africa is a collection of failed states and basket-cases. Sierre Leone, for example, is no longer able to maintain its water supply and power grid. Nigeria is in a low-grade civil war with Muslims and Zimbabwe is the glaring example of the African failed state.

...

You see, Africa is the example that counters everything our Progressive rulers believe about the world. If the blank slate is true, then Africans should have made great strides in closing the gap with the white world. If things like “institutional racism” were real things, Africa should be racing toward modernity now. If colonialism was the reason these places were so backward, a half century of freedom should have gone a long way toward curing the effects of the white man. Instead. everywhere Africa is worse than a half century ago.

The response from our Progressive rulers is to just ignore Africa. You see it in this National Review article on the end of Mugabe’s rule. The authoress is young, so she was poached in the warm liquids of multiculturalism her whole life. Her struggle to explain the decline of Rhodesia into Zimbabwe reads like a person trying to disarm a bomb while blindfolded. She not only avoids the elephant in the room, which is race, she leaves the reader with the impression that there is no such thing as elephants. Race does not exist.

That’s why Africa stopped being important to our Progressive rulers. It’s why the efforts of George Bush to do something about AIDS in Africa was largely ignored. You can’t talk about Africa without talking about race and race realism. Those are taboo subjects, so the whole continent may as well not exist. Bring up the subject in a room full of Progressives and watch their reaction. You won’t see fear. It will be confusion. The subject has been purged from the catechism, so it no longer exists. Africa is not cool anymore.

Remember when Obama's brother in Kenya said that it would be better for them if the whites returned to Kenya?

Study: Whites Must Not Be Civil To Non-Whites (really!)

White Civility is Racist, Promoting White Supremacy and Whiteness
Evil, Evil, Evil)

Civility and White Institutional Presence: An Exploration of White Students' Understanding of Race-Talk at a Traditionally White Institution

ABSTRACT

In this study, the authors draw upon critical whiteness studies to explore how White students' understanding of race-talk within higher education (re)produces whiteness. Through an analysis of interview data, they generated 3 categories describing whiteness-informed civility (WIC): (a) WIC functions to create a good White identity, (b) WIC functions to erase racial identity, and (c) WIC functions to assert control of space. These thematic concepts show how WIC is characterized by logics of race-evasion, avoidance of race-talk, and exclusion of people of color. The authors conclude by offering ways for instructors to interrogate WIC through classroom practices informed by critical communication pedagogy.

…"Civility within higher education is a racialized, rather than universal, norm."

The authors (both white) have defined 3 categories of "civility" describing whiteness-informed civility (WIC):

(a) WIC functions to create a good White identity: I.e., treat with courtesy. This is bad because it promotes “Good Whiteness” and thus White Supremacy.

(b) WIC functions to erase racial identity: “I don’t see race; I see a person”. This is race-talk evasion, and that is Whiteness and White Supremacy.

(c) WIC functions to assert control of space. Segregation.

Civility is therefore a racist tactic used by whites to suppress/oppress non-whites. Apparently what is desired by these two white authors is blunt race-talk, which is not civil.

It is interesting that in all Leftist attacks on Whites and Whiteness, the criticisms leave no alternative for the white person to use. For example, if courtesy is not allowed, and ignoring race is not allowed, then the resulting “race-talk” when encountering a non-white must be non-courteous, and race-oriented.

Think about that the next time you encounter a POC (person of color). You must be rude and address that person’s race and zis/zer place in the hierarchy of man, based on skin tone (the only marker of race for the Left). Now that would certainly be an event to observe from a safe distance.

Now this: …"Civility within higher education is a racialized, rather than universal, norm."

As a white potentially encountering a non-white, I imagine that this is quite valid; at least within current cultural social connections race is hard to ignore. And perhaps civility is always “racialized” in that context. It certainly will be under the direction of these authors.

But whose fault is the perpetual class war between races? Class war is not a white value; class war is a Leftist value, and has been since the days of Democrat-dominated Slavery. And this entire “study” is following the skeletal Leftist narrative which demands that there be conflict engendered by whites against non-whites, and never peaceful community with non-whites. This study, by virtue of prejudicing the inputs, intends to show that there is no way around it; racism is a first principle of Whiteness, a Leftist condemnation of the souls of whites everywhere.

The rational error here is obvious: The original premise goes against the larger observation, which is that it is not – NOT – necessary to have “race-talk” with every “not my race” person, every time one meets one. In fact, this would be a disaster of the first order, especially given the conditions which the authors place on such race-talk contacts.

Further, the three “types of civility” are fully bogus. Types (a) and (b) are pegged as actual, genuine civility between the white and the non-white, which is condemned out-of-hand as promoting the white as a “good” white, which immediately connects imaginarily to White Supremacy.

So being a civil, “good” person is damned as a racist act of suppression/oppression by the white, against the beleaguered non-white.

As is all too common with Leftist projections, the unreasonable presuppositions are in place in order for the Left to place class condemnation on the selected Oppressor Class. In this instance, the whites have no recourse. Any and everything they do within the boundaries of this set of presuppositions is declared officially racist. Further, the consequential, if unmentioned, choice – rude race-talk – with all People of Color, in every encounter, is also racist.

Finally, it is apparent that rude race-talk is, in fact, what many campus radicals want: except they want to be the rude party, screaming "shut up and listen" while they spit expletives and hate in the faces of their victims. When one does listen, what one hears is eliminationist Marxist rhetoric in full hate mode, which cannot be hate speech because only whites can do that.

If the POC actually obtain their desire to eliminate or at least completely nullify the White race and Whiteness in general, what will remain is visible in the blue cities - Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore - where Leftism has ruled for decades. And of course in the No Go Zones of France, Germany, Sweden, Britain. Under Leftism, no options are pretty.

What Actually Happened at Evergreen College and Why

It's worse than you probably think...

Bonfire of the academies: Two professors on how leftist intolerance is killing higher education

Read it all THERE.

Culture of Constant Contradictions

Ladies, Remember Men Are Dangerous. Now Share A Bathroom With Them And Don't Carry A Gun.

It's important, I'm told, to be respectful of opposing beliefs. We mustn't be dismissive of viewpoints that differ from our own. We mustn't condescend.

What about viewpoints that differ from ... themselves? For the Left that's OK because Shut UP!

Others by Matt Walsh:

WALSH: This Transgender Person Allegedly Raped A Girl In A Bathroom. Leftists Still Want Men In The Women's Room.

WALSH: We're Still Funding The Abortion Industry, But Let's Be Mad About Trophy Hunting Instead

WALSH: If Kids Can't Consent, Stop Pushing Sex And Birth Control On Them In Grade School

Well, the only absolute principles that the Left adheres to are 1) that rape is OK if it's done by a Leftist who supports women's rights, or a Leftist Victimhood Class member; 2) Abortion is a First Principle of Leftist eradicationalism; 3) kids and sex - Yum - when does the plane to pedophile island leave? 4) Contradictions are a Right Wing Conspiracy Theory.

Misuse of Karl Popper.

Apparently the Left is using a trope which is called “Popper’s Paradox”. Since I am always interested in anything either Popperian or paradoxical, I took a look. And here’s the story, somewhat condensed:

It goes like this:

1. We must be tolerant.
2. We must not be tolerant of intolerance.
3. Therefore, we must be intolerant of intolerance.

This concept has directly enabled the fantasy that everything that the Left doesn’t like is “intolerance” of the right-thinking Left. Another way to say it is that everything the Left says or does must be tolerated, because “we must be tolerant”; therefore dissent is intolerance, which cannot be tolerated.

This is logically absurd, of course, since it is internally inconsistent, and self-denying, and thus it cannot be true. By inspection we can see that #1 and #2 above are incompatible and oppositional statements. Because the two statements are non-coherent, one of those premises must be false.

Popper wouldn’t ever make this mistake, and he didn’t.

Popper:

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

To summarize what Popper actually said:

1. We must be tolerant, but not without limit.
2. Therefore we must be tolerant of intolerance, IFF intolerance is physically passive, intellectual (amenable to contrary argumentation).
3. But we must not tolerate such intolerance as is totalitarian, i.e., actively aggressive physically, anti-intellectual, suppressive of contrary argumentation, dominating.
4. Because tolerance, like freedom, is not a suicide pact.

Popper actually fully defines the characteristics of the "intolerant":

...they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

The Left requires some sort of aura of legitimacy for their position even if doesn’t actually exist. So the Left chooses to increase its irrationality by attributing to Popper that which he didn’t say, by perversely truncating the quote and then reversing the attribution of intolerance, by redefinition (they are tolerant, but only of skin tone, not of contrary argument or even contrary thought). And that is within the Left’s necessary ability to live with logical and factual falseness in every aspect of their positions.

The Left is argument-impaired, being subsumed under Post Modern concepts of "no truth". If they argue at all, it is with false principles which they think they can attribute to their enemies for the purpose of condemnation of their enemies. This is the essence of Alinskyism: hold your enemies to their own principles (even if you have to make those principles up yourself).

Using a single sentence, undeservedly attributing the positive classification to themselves, ignoring the actual observed characteristics of their own behaviors and beliefs; all these rational failures are cynically used to twist Popper's statement diametrically for their own use. Their use for the past year and a half has been consistent justification of violence upon unarmed citizens. But now they have flipped to anti-violence in preparation for the next election.

The Post Modern Left accepts that "all cultures are equal". But not cultures which have contrary values. So they also accept that there "is no Truth", which nullifies their dogma when it is convenient. The Left has no arguments to offer because they believe BOTH that both sides are equally valid, AND that only their side is valid (for no reason at all). This leads the Left to dictate "Truths" which they also admit do not exist.