Ongoing Reflections on the Political Scene

On Sunday, July 10, 2022, I attended my first political meeting in over six months.

I was underwhelmed, to put it mildly.

There were not very many people attending (about 15 tops, and that included the speakers, and two of them had to leave early for another engagement). The youngest person there was 37 years old, and that young person was not me, either.

The main speaker was a candidate for the United States Senate, who is campaigning to run against Dianne Feinstein. We have to wonder if she even has a chance, since Feinstein is pushing 90 years old, with advanced evidence of dementia hampering her basic ability to move around the US capitol or engage in daily business.

She probably will not survive until the 2024 election.

At any rate, during the question and answer period, I asked the candidate if she would sponsor a constitutional amendment to define marriage between one man and one woman. She was not open to doing that, but she would support legislation for that effort, and she made it very clear that she recognized marriage between one man and one woman.

While I was pressing her on this issue (as a US Senator, she could help start the movement to codify natural marriage in the United States Constitution), one of the older guys in the front of the audience shushed me: "People who pursue that are wasting their time."

It was really rude, and completely uncalled for. There was no reason for that guy to shame me.

After the meeting, I confronted that guy, and I told him off. "You had no right or reason to shut me down. That was totally uncalled for."

Another guy walked up to me, and he told me that we should just focus on California, and not worry about national issues. I could not believe that two people were wasting my time arguing with me about the desire for a constitutional amendment.

More to my credit, there were two people in the audience sitting near me who agreed with me. We need our elected officials to make the effort to move the cultural norms in the right direction in this country, even if they cannot succeed right away. One man sitting right next to me said, "You can't win if you don't try!"

Exactly.

And that's when I realized that this whole meeting and the club had turned into a complete waste of time. It seems like political conservative groups have no influence, no interest in doing anything, in getting anything done. All they want to do is bicker about internecine political conflicts about which club should represent which part of the South Bay in Los Angeles County.

There is no plan to win elections. There is no plan to register voters. There is no means or desire to raise money. It's just a bunch of old people who want to occupy their time on a Sunday afternoon. What is the point of going to these clubs, when there are no policy changes working in our direction?

I wonder how many of the members in that meeting even walked precincts to help elect local candidates? Did any of them do anything? Anything at all?!

Probably not. They had one dinner to give the candidates a chance to speak to the members, and even then that meeting was a dude. About twenty people showed up, and that was it. It was really disappointing.

To this day, I am not sure what is the point of these meetings, and I have stopped attending them. I am committed to not wasting my time with those meetings, too. The candidates do not have a chance, and there is no party apparatus, on infrastructure to guarantee any kind of victory for any candidates. All of it is a gross waste of time.

They don't want to win. They just want to whine.

They want to sit around and feel sorry for themselves because their candidates do not have a chance, and they believe that any effort is not worth the effort. There is too much gossip, too much hand-wringing, lots of complaining, but no interest in working.

I have had enough. For the time being, just count me out. I am so done with this waste of time and energy.

THE BATTLE FOR THE SOUL OF A NATION - Professor Thio Li-Ann

I discovered this post from Dr. Thio Li-Ann of the Republic of Singapore.

I am sharing her remarks with the general public, since they deserve recognition and reflection.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History teaches us that nations are destroyed in two major ways:

1. An overwhelming aggressive external force - think Alexander the Great, the Roman empire, Nebuchadnezzar - but history shows that all human empires are temporal, and exist by the leave of El Elyon: Acts 17 :26

2. Internal rot - through moral corruption, through narcissism, through tribalism, pitting tribe versus tribe, "us" versus the "other".

This involves the deployment of the tactics of Cultural Marxism which always involves positing an "oppressor /oppressed" binary, then channeling hatred towards whoever is labelled the 'oppressor.'

We can see this in action in the USA, with the spread of lawlessness and divisiveness, outrage mobs and the virtue signalling 'woke' vigilantes (who prefer to look good or feel good, rather than to be good). All talk of the 'common good' seems to have evaporated, as fast as rain on a tropical steamy day. There is only the world of the 'evil tyrant' and the 'social justice warrior.'

Justice we should seek, but social justice? There is a difference. "Social justice" is determined by those in charge of social opinion; this in the West is wielded by the hard-left liberal elite.

Social Justice ain't Justice: https://www.prageru.com/video/social-justice-isnt-justice/

Is there injustice in the world? Certainly. Are there perfect politicians? Of course not. Politics cannot bring about "utopia" or a perfect state of things (unless you are a deluded ideologue, whether a hard left marxist or illiberal liberal who secretly wants to be a totalitarian).

Politicians can do "some good" and they can do "a lot of harm." Its unfortunately a mixed bag, because politicians want (need?) to be popular and that can devolve into pandering.

A politician may support 3 good causes and 1 terrible one. How do we choose, when one politician can speak up for causes we have sympathy for, and advocate for causes we must resist because of their deleterious impact?

Who has wisdom up to the task? Who has discernment that will transcend emotional "thinking with our feelings," which always betrays the condition of our heart. There is the tendency of orphan spirits to elevate 'compassion', over the hard work of making difficult choices and tolerable trade-offs, which require both our reason and conscience to make decisions, by doing the heavy lifting of understandings the implications and consequences of an action or decision. And for certain fundamentals, we do not budge. Build and Protect, Tend and Keep.

It is hard to be a statesman and to demonstrate moral heft and leadership in such a setting. It sometimes requires a firm principled stand against populism or the demands of those who shout the loudest or who are most skilled in the base art of spin, PR, political pressure tactics like score-carding.

I am sick of 'woke' culture, 'cancel' culture because it seeks to crush viewpoint diversity and freedom of expression borne out of a commitment to the well-being of a polity.

It is the self-righteous strategy of Cultural Marxists who arrogate to themselves the power to determine what is right/wrong, what should or should not be tolerated, all while pretending to speak in the name of "social justice" (who died and made you king?).

The playbook of Cultural Marxists ("cultural" because they foment the "culture war" which is really a debate about public morality and how this affects law and policy) includes

A) POLITICS AS WARFARE NOT DELIBERATION, NEGOTIATION AND LIVABLE COMPROMISES

Seeing politics as apocalyptic warfare, rather than an enterprise requiring the art of compromise, the discipline of civility, an appreciation that politics is the art of the possible and not a way to bring about some form of 'utopian' salvation

B) BINARY WORLDVIEW, REJECTING COMPLEXITY AND EMBRACING THE SIMPLISTIC

Adopting a lens by which everything is classified into the category of "oppressor" and "oppressed." There are wiser perspectives which do not trade in binaries but appreciate that apart from non-negotiable principles, things (in politics) reside along a continuum...there is always some 'third space' for idealistic realists and principled pragmatists.

Cultural Marxists want to destroy their opponents, discredit them, engage in name-calling (argument by chanting slogans, you can see this all over US college campuses). They are not fellow-citizens to be engaged with, they are to be eradicated. Exiled to some kind of cold cultural Siberia. Place them on 'time-out', exclude them (while chanting for a more inclusive society: Ergo, to expose the hypocritical double standards, when someone demands tolerance - ask what they would not tolerate, when someone chants diversity and inclusivity, ask what they would exclude).

Every theory of "consent" has a moral limit - the question is: who gets to determine what this is?

A-ha, stealth power grab!

Valorise 'consent' and choice, demonise what is chosen. Choice is not the ultimate meta value; some choices should not be chosen. Some things ought not to be tolerated. Some things ought to be excluded. This is why you don't eat a slab of butter every day, even if it is appealing to you.

Opportunity costs.

C) DAMN THEM: DEHUMANISE, DEMONISE AND DOWNGRADE DEBATE (TACTICS OF INTIMIDATION, SILENCING AND OBSCURING STRONG COUNTERVAILING ARGUMENTS)

After identifying who is the "oppressor," the strategy is then to dehumanise and demonise your opponent, to engage in the spurious "argument by insult" not because his/her arguments are good or bad, but because you want to turn other people away from assessing the argument, to win an argument by default rather than tenting it to the quick, unpacking it, giving due credit to good points, exposing poor reasoning.

If you give someone or something a bad label e.g. "this mee pok is not tasty", no one will try it. So you may say: e.g. X is a secular / religious fundamentalist and nothing he has to say is worth thinking about.

Think about it, in your certitude that you are right, you can become self-righteous - "I am he who cannot be questioned because I am absolutely right - you are a bigot and I will whack you into silent submission and tolerate you only when you (abjectly) agree with me."

Perhaps you should doubt your certainty. It could belie an infantile blinkered perspective. We live in a plural world. On things that count, there will be differences.

You can believe you are right, you can stand on principles which are true - relativism is not an attractive proposition because it has its own absolutist premise: All views are equal (the same) except the view that A is a better view.

You can believe in absolute principles, defend them, persuade others, fight to spread the wisdom, but you don't have to have an absolutist frame of mind which refuses to think, comforted in your own infallibility or refusal to engage diverse viewpoints. There is a difference between absolute principles and an absolutist mindset. A good debater thoroughly understands, engages with a different view.

As John Stuart Mill argued, if you argue with someone and you discover you are wrong, you can change your mind. If you argue with someone and discover you are right, you can solidify your tested opinion.

As John Milton stated: "Let Truth and Falsehood collide: who ever knew Truth to be put to the worst, in a free and open encounter."

Throw 'truth bombs" not "shut up bombs". Metaphorically speaking of course.

To be 'self righteous' is not having the inclination to engage or the ability to understand opposing arguments: not to say 'all views are equally cogent' (because clearly they are not) but to assess whether an argument makes a valid point, a half baked point, a refutable point or is utter twaddle.

So, Cultural Marxist, demonise someone, silence them by intimidation, clear them out of the public sphere so you can do a power-grab. Are your bullying ways above reproach?

d. MORAL CONFUSION: THE POLITICS OF VICTIMHOOD AND THE STRATEGY OF SUPPRESSION

The victims victimise, and the oppressor, oppresses. The innocent are tarred and feathered, the wicked get off scot- free. "Poor me, I am so oppressed, while I oppress you."

Victim Chic? The Rhetoric of Victimhood

https://www.jubilee-centre.org/cambridge-papers/victim-chic-the-rhetoric-of-victimhood-by-michael-ovey

e. TRUMPING TRUTH WITH NOXIOUS NARRATIVE

There was a video of a white Louisiana couple having dinner in their own home. BLM protesters crashed into their home, broke their gate, threatened to kill them and their dog. They rang for the police, no one was coming to help. The man took his rifle and shouted at the protesters to leave his property.

Who was the victim? Consider how the liberal left media painted the couple as the oppressors, how the liberal left District Attorney wanted to charge them (for the crime of self-defense?). Utterly disgusting. Painting the victim as oppressor and the oppressor as victim: Isaiah 5:20 - woe unto you for calling good evil, and evil good.

Truth is sidelined in favour of Narrative and Narrative always fuels a political agenda. When cultural marxism - the desire to impose a comprehensive ideology and to brook no dissent - is the driving force, totalitarianism beckons.

See for yourself.

1. The leftwing Washington Post reports: "St. Louis couple point guns at crowd of protesters calling for mayor to resign" https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/29/st-louis-protest-gun-mayor/

2. And on the right side of things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiIZTVuSUiY

You can see who the real aggressors are. If you faced a mob of 30-40 people invading your house, threatening you what would you do? Say 'well done' and bow the knee?

Brains? Spine? Anyone?

Ah, elections, irritants pollute the air. What inspired this mini-rant of sorts?

A brilliant observation by Bill Muehlenberg, which must get its place in the honour roll of insight.

"The militant left hates Trump, hates America, hates freedom, hates Christianity, hates the police, and hates just about everything decent and honourable. So here is a good rule of thumb: the more the leftists hate something, the more you can count on it being of great value and worth."

https://billmuehlenberg.com/2020/07/08/trump-and-truth-versus-tyranny-and-treason/?fbclid=IwAR01T9HFTQjb8BRz9RpdQQQ7-di4GkPu9V-mO3xG5SGU1D4MAzirUEyfEo4

This is in relation to President Trump's brilliant Rushmore speech, which of course, the left derides.

It is worth reading in full - you can find it here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-south-dakotas-2020-mount-rushmore-fireworks-celebration-keystone-south-dakota/

In it, President Trump says

... Our Founders boldly declared that we are all endowed with the same divine rights — given [to] us by our Creator in Heaven. And that which God has given us, we will allow no one, ever, to take away — ever. (Applause.)

...Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children. (Cue Cultural Marxist Sloganeering)

....One of their political weapons is “Cancel Culture” — driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and it is completely alien to our culture and our values,

...The violent mayhem we have seen in the streets of cities that are run by liberal Democrats, in every case, is the predictable result of years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education, journalism, and other cultural institutions.

....The radical ideology attacking our country advances under the banner of social justice. But in truth, it would demolish both justice and society. It would transform justice into an instrument of division and vengeance, and it would turn our free and inclusive society into a place of repression, domination, and exclusion.

....We are proud of the fact — (applause) — that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and we understand — (applause) — that these values have dramatically advanced the cause of peace and justice throughout the world.

........We believe in equal opportunity, equal justice, and equal treatment for citizens of every race, background, religion, and creed. Every child, of every color — born and unborn — is made in the holy image of God. (Applause.)

....We want free and open debate, not speech codes and cancel culture.

....We embrace tolerance, not prejudice.

Like or dislike President Trump, is there not weight in his words, do they not expose the tactics of Cultural Marxists? Of course there is a difference between aspiration and realisation and of course all politicians are imperfect (I defy you to identify one who does everything right in today's polarised world).

Are you able to assess a view, an opinion, or do you go on automatic demonisation mode? It's like saying 'nothing good can come out of Nazareth' (pace, paraphased).

A brilliant commentary on the speech and the response to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64GgCVqRLzU

It is also worth evaluating the response to Trump's Rushmore address, as it offers a clear demonstration of the nature of the culture war, the battle for the soul of a nation, of many nations, perhaps all nations.

To paraphase a bon mot: If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."

How do things stand with you today?

As for me, I will hearten to Bill M's observation: "the more the leftists hate something, the more you can count on it being of great value and worth."

Vote wisely, make good choices, exercise your slice of sovereignty, keep on keeping on until Ps 84:7.

https://www.facebook.com/561267729/posts/10157732666452730/

Why I Fight--Why I Crusade for Conservatism

Am I making too much noise? Did I bother you?

Did I make a few moneyed special interests mad because I refused to be quiet, and I refused to say "Let's just keep doing what we are doing"?

Have I disturbed the peace and quiet of leadership in the Republican Party of Los Angeles County? I have had lots of fun messing with the "undocumented politicians" of the Democratic Party, who now command a two-thirds majority in Sacramento once again.

I want the people who represent me and my values to represent ... me and my values.

I am tired of hearing stories from local elected officials who say that they get no help.

Huh?

I am also tired of not seeing the loyal, royal opposition taking down the destructive, corrupt Democrats upending our entire way of life.

Republicans have truth on their side. It's time for us to plainly make our case.

What is the matter with California voters?

Why is it that so many people simply do not see what is happening to this once Golden State?

No one is giving them something better.

Speaker Anthony Rendon, a Democrat from Paramount, emphatically announced that the state legislature would focus on Latinos.

WHAT?

That's racist.

What about the rest of California? Just because my skin color is slightly lighter, does that mean I am no longer a man and a brother?

Business interests are taking an untold pounding from the state legislature. If you want to make money, you are like that black man getting attacked by the NYPD: "I can't breathe! I can't breathe!"

Who is going to raise the money in order to stop being dependent on third-house funding?

How are we going to led the fight to take back our state?

A moderation of values is not working.

A mindset of trying to have opposing view points unify under one tent is not working, either.

A clear, precise appreciation for this fact is crucial.

The battle for this state stands out in terms of black and white.

Either we secure our borders, respect our businesses, and honor taxpayers, or we do not.

Either our elected officials abide by their pledges, or they do not.

A wishy-washy all-encompassing, believe whatever you want Republican Party is simply not working.

Let's stand for something, let's reach out to everyone, and let's fight for an open society, free and opportune.

Life, family, marriage, integrity of individual sovereignty--all of this matters. Why are we running away from the very principles which make civilization possible?

Ted Cruz Chooses Wisely, Votes for Donald Trump

Ted Cruz is a real mensch – or should I write caballero?

Despite the pain and conflicts of the primary season, he is now voting for Trump.

His story is legendary, especially in connection with his impressive, pious, and persuasive father Rafael.

I admit at the outset that he was not my first choice for President. Kurt Schlichter and other conservative bloggers feared that he did not have the national appeal to sweep the country they way that Donald Trump has.

That means nothing to me right now, and I am of the ardent opinion that after another term in the United States Senate (I want him to win, and I am glad that he is already fundraising for his re-election bid).

What was it about Ted Cruz, though, that had so excited me about a Presidential candidate, almost as much as I wanted Scott Walker to win?

1. He stood up to the Democratic and Republican Establishment, without fear of recrimination, in the press or among his colleagues.

2. He has been an outspoken defender of liberty. His fight against the international socialist takeover of the Internet has gotten too little attention, in my view.

3. He voices the concerns of the silent majority. The only setback between him and Trump is that the real estate mogul from Manhattan had commanded the mainstream media with masterful puppetry. A US Senator from Texas cannot count on the desperate media cover the way that Donald took it away.

4. Conservative wags along with Main Street wage earners simply did not know enough about him.

Does that mean he could not have served as a fit and faithful chief executive? Not at all.

In the end, the other liability weighing down his Presidential bid was his lack of time on the national stage, the same problem which hurt Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and other outspoken conservatives.

His most admirable moments during the Presidential primary did not get the attention they deserved, either.

Of all the Republicans hustling for voters during the Iowa caucuses, he was the only candidate who refused to support ethanol subsidies. That stance is normally a deal-breaker. Yet Cruz faced off against an ethanol farmer, who firmed told the Cuban-American from Texas: “You are going to lose Iowa.”

Why? Because Cruz refused to bow down to Big Corn and Big Agra.

Instead of pushing aside this outraged voter, Cruz explained, cogently and respectfully, that he was not opposed to ethanol per se. He supported all forms of energy exploration and production. He was dead-set against the subsidies, however, and not just for corn, but for all energy companies and corporate interests.

Isn’t that the war-cry of the Occupy Movement, the Tea Party, and the outraged No Longer Silent Majority?  They are tired of seeing a few well-connected companies pulling the strings of elected officials through a well-financed phalanx of lobbyists.

Cruz opposed this corrupt cartel, and he explained this opposition so effectively, winning over a would-be opponent in the crucial Iowa caucuses.

And he won.

Cruz would struggle in the next three primaries, in part because there were so many candidates punching at each other, while Trump was riding the wave of free media coverage over this fray.

Cruz got back into gear in Texas. He launched some of the most incredible advertising and marketing. He was on the upswing in other key states, like Idaho, Alaska, and then Maine. Who would have thought that a consistent conservative like Cruz would carry away a key win in New England? That unprecedented win has signaled the growing ruby-red groundswell taking over the Pine Tree State. A Republican has not won general election electoral votes in Maine in three decades. Trump is bound to win at least one this time, and he can thank Cruz for helping to make that happen.

But Cruz’ chances crashed in New York State, and then the ACELA primaries that followed (Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island). Why? He exuded a magisterial, academic temperament. He demonstrated an admirable resume married with a quick wit and profound knowledge. Plus he was a stellar debater who silenced the most ardent critics, both on the debate stage, and in public gatherings.

But elections are all about heart-to-heart. Brilliant minds alone do not end in the winner’s circle.

I remember his last fight for votes. In Indiana, another deep red state with the same bent of fiscal and social conservatism, but also married with a turn towards populist sentiment and pragmatic outreach. Cruz couldn’t climb out of the 20% level, and he would later drop out.

It was crushing and sad.

He stood his ground before a large crowd of pro-Trump hecklers, who had chanted “Lying Ted” and mocked his wife’s former connections with Goldman Sachs. Instead of running away, he faced them the same way he answered the Iowa ethanol farmer. How had he ever lied? One which issues did Indiana voters quibble with him?

He never wavered from his conservative convictions, even after dropping out of the race.

I admire Ted Cruz so much. I had no quarrel with his decision not to officially endorse Trump for President at the Convention. How would any of us have felt if someone had directly attacked our loved ones?

Such is politics, but we are human beings, too, and we command respect from our fellows regardless of the circumstances—or pledges.

Today, I admire Senator Cruz’ decision to announce his support for Trump.

Ted CRUZ! (Credit: Gage Skidmore)

After all, #NeverHillary is the battle cry of this election season, too, along with “Make America Great Again.”

While Cruz did not catch on with the electorate the way that Trump did, his outreach and record outline what an incredible conservative, and compelling statesman, he truly is.

Senator Cruz, thank you for inspiring more unity in your party and in your country. I recognize that you are already Making America Great Again, and if you ever want to run for President again, rest assured you will have my vote!