Intelligent Design

The Irony of Liberal Fascism

Spread the love

Daniel Payne writes in How The Left Is Weaponizing The American Legal System:

For quite some time the American Left has been busy turning American law into a partisan political weapon. Various progressive factions have undertaken a disparate and uncoordinated but still ideologically homogeneous effort to criminalize dissent using the courts and statutory law.

By most traditional metrics, these efforts have been failures: the liberals have often lost, and the conservative targets have avoided jail time or crippling criminal or civil convictions or penalties. But the weaponization of our legal system should not be judged by traditional metrics. The point is not for liberals to “win” any particular lawsuit or legal enforcement so much as it is to use lawsuits and the law as the weapons in and of themselves. The process is the punishment. And in most of these cases the punishment is very severe. That’s the idea.

In large part this reflects growing liberal opposition to a pluralistic society: not merely opposition to ideas but rather opposition toideas about ideas, a strong and deliberate enmity towards intellectual diversity and dissenting thought. Gay marriage, the “settled science” of climate change, the morality of abortion, the wisdom of allowing grown men into little girls’ restrooms—all of these things (and many other liberal ballyhoos) are assumed to be unassailable. “It’s 2016,” many on the Left will say, sneeringly. Meaning: “It is no longer appropriate or acceptable for you to say or think things with which I disagree.”

This is, of course, very ironic.  Broadly speaking, in the United States there are two groups vying for ascendancy.  Conservatives are largely defined by seeking to ground their ethics on objective eternal verities.  Liberals largely reject that approach to ethics.  This is why any poll on the matter will show the metric “regular church attendance” is overwhelmingly skewed toward the conservative party.

The group that says morality is an ontologically “real” thing favors free speech even for its opponents (actually “especially for” its opponents, because “free speech only for those who agree with me” is an empty construct).  The group that denies the essential reality of morality nevertheless pushes their subjective preferences in area after area with a vicious fascism and would seek to deny even the right to question those preferences, much less transgress them.

Here’s the irony: The group with the weaker, indeed non-existent, moral ontology (i.e., no grounding at all for its ethic outside of subjective preference), seeks to impose its views on others with a vicious authoritarianism; while the group with the vastly stronger moral ontology favors a vigorous debate and freedom of dissent.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised.  After all, liberals claim to be the “party of science,” and Jerry Coyne assures us that under scientific determinism a kick in the groin is no different from an argument when seeking to condition behavior to conform to the good, with the word “good” standing in for Jerry Coyne’s subjective preference.  Conversely, conservatives — bound as they are by that whole “do as you would be done by” ethic — grant to others the right of dissent they would have for themselves.

 

 

37 Replies to “The Irony of Liberal Fascism

  1. 1
    PaV says:

    When we possess the truth—an ontological reality that we can, indeed, ‘possess’—we know it; we’re aware of it. And it is something we prize. (Isn’t this the joy of scientists as they discover what Nature is like?) And we gladly share it, while being saddened if others don’t desire it.

    OTOH, when we sneak something in and accept it as ‘truth’—a ‘fraudulent reality’—our only ‘joy’ is when other people accept our fake ‘truth’. And when they reject it, it disturbs us. Hence the desire to ‘impose’ this fraudulent ‘truth’ on others.

    Or, as they say in the liberal world: “Ideology uber alles!”

  2. 2
    mahuna says:

    Again, I’m not sure why you insist on calling these classic COMMUNIST tactics “fascism”.

    NONE of the people involved show the SLIGHTEST hint of Nationalist spirit. What they consistently show is belief in a supra-national control board of “eminent experts” who from time to time issue notices on what MUST be believed or the FULL might of the oppressive bureaucrats will fall upon you. And so, for example, in the US one can be charged with a series of “piling on” offenses including violation of the RICO statutes: operation of a continuing criminal enterprise. RICO has been used for decades by federal prosecutors to crush very minor offenders by charging them with very minor crimes, things like parking illegally 3 times over the past 2 years.

    Fascism hasn’t existed since 1945. Communism, if you can call what Castro does in Cuba “Communism”, remains with us, still using the same methods of government that Lenin perfected in 1919.

  3. 3
    PaV says:

    The traditional association is that fascism attacks and shuts down oppossing thought. That’s the way to interpret fascism here.

    I remember in the late 60’s and early 70’s, the Left called police “fascist pigs.” It always interesting to note how the Left, when attacking the Right, simply projects its sinfulness onto them.

    So here we are, over 40 years later, and who are the “fascist pigs” now: the Left. In an authoritarian way (‘pigs’), they want to shut down any thought that they disapprove of (fascism).

    Their hypocrisy knows no limit. Their inability to self-criticize now is at an all-time high.

    And, according to them, they’re the ‘smart ones’ that everyone else has to listen to. Oh my.

    When I was growing up a “black culture” existed, but was not too different from what American culture at large was at that time. There was no divorce. People graduated from high school. Teenage pregnancy was absolutely minimal. People took pride in their appearances (out of courtesy for others). I could go on. But, the liberals went after power like a tiger goes after a Wildebeest, and have destroyed our culture. There is hardly anything left of it.

    Today Trump is in Detroit, a city run by democrats for years and years, and it is the shame of America.

    Here’s my slogan encapsulating what the Left is like:
    “If you want to destroy something, just get four liberals to fix it.”

    Liberalism, thy name is corruption.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Off topic:

    Stephen Meyer Discusses the DNA enigma with Dr. Katherine Albrecht
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZHa6preXzE
    Published on Aug 8, 2016
    Dr. Stephen Meyer discusses the origin of life, the DNA enigma, and the arguments from his book Darwin’s Doubt on The Katherine Albrecht Show.

  5. 5
    Robert Byers says:

    Yes the law is being used by forceful peoples to impose thier conclusions on issues of contention , now or in the past.
    The very essence of law is under attack.
    law means obedience of the person to what is told them to be obedient to.
    so in our free nations it is the people who make the laws by their process. Save natural laws or laws settled in a greater law conclusion like a constitution.
    So its simply a issue to fight first who makes the laws and what was the law they made.
    Thats it.
    Its not the natural laws but the laws settled in the constitutions that is the problem.
    They are saying they FIND it settled in the constitution what the laws are in historic or present contentions.
    This has been happening since wwii.
    Just take them on.
    In America the constitution can’t be twisted out of the conclusions of the folks making it centuries ago. In Canada also, more difficult, yet also conclusions must be proved to have been made and put in the constitution.

    In fact I note the laws of God/nature would be illegal by present court decisions.
    This is a angle good guys should seize also.

  6. 6
    mike1962 says:

    I put locks on my doors.

    I want to keep certain people out.

    It’s my choice.

    Fuk the touchy feely brain dead left if they don’t understand that.

    Even my dog gets it.

    Ruff!

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, Lawfare is an actual act of war; especially when the proper use of the sword of justice is perverted in favour of agendas — whether to persecute the innocent or to frustrate the course of justice in defending the civil peace from enemies foreign and domestic. Those who play with big matches like that should beware the out- of- control conflagrations they may trigger across our civilisation. And if you think you can ride a firestorm to utopia, you are a 10 ga, full scriptural sense fool. No ifs, ands or buts. KF

  8. 8

    The real power in United States government rests in the Supreme Court, with the only exception being in military engagements where the executive branch clearly holds power with a vice grip. The late Justice William Brennan once said that the Supreme Court could do anything with five votes.

    There is no appeal after the Supreme Court. Five votes becomes a mandate on the entire country (all 320 million people). The left is winning the culture war because it is supported by left-leaning justices. That will only get worse when Hillary wins and selects the next justice to replace Scalia.

    Everyone should read the landmark case McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the first Supreme Court case to decide (in a 5-4 vote) that the Second Amendment protects an “individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” Leftists desperately want to overturn that decision, and they will very likely be successful after Hillary wins.

  9. 9
    Robert Byers says:

    Truth will set you free.
    I am a cAnadian but what you said was wrong on a few points.
    the real power is the legitimate power. Any other power is a invader.
    Like most things Brennan was wrong. The court can not do anything. its not a dictator. There is a appeal after the court decisions. Lincoln proved this in the Dred scott case.
    The Supreme court mUST obey the peoples contract amongst themselves for their type of government.
    The court only may JUDGE on settled conclusions, made by contract amongst the people, and stated/written in the constitution.
    if the court rejects or invents a settled conclusion then they are in rebellion to the government and thus the social contract of the people amongst themselves for government.

    if a decision is seen as wrong by ANYONE they can bitch thats its unconstitutional. They can complain.
    if enough or a majority complain then they can demand a retrial. if the court still rejects/invents then they are breaking the contract and so the people owe no obedience.
    Its the constitution, on settled conclusions, that is the legal power.
    Not the judges. The people, and President, owe obedience to the constitution. If the judges disobey it then they are in rebellion and must be fired etc.

    No excuses. Conservative and good guys everywhere just need to get off thier intellectual butts and take on the ethnic/sexual liberal establishment judicial moral and intellectual corruption.
    Government by the people, of the people, for the people.
    no courts save in minor details that bump into cases that bump into the constitution.

  10. 10
    EvilSnack says:

    The Supreme Court is only as powerful as the executive branch allows it to be.

  11. 11

    EvilSnack @ 10: Actually, the executive branch is only as powerful as the Supreme Court allows IT to be. The executive branch has clearly grown more powerful with each passing generation, but only because the Supreme Court allowed it (and even sanctioned it) at various points in history. We cannot get into all the specifics in these threads, but there is an abundance of evidence to support my contentions.

  12. 12

    Robert Byers @ 9: I understand your point (and frustration). I am not arguing that the Supreme Court SHOULD BE the most powerful branch, only that it is (in my humble opinion) due to judicial review of everything the other two branches do. This is certainly not a hill to die on for me. Just a harmless opinion.

  13. 13
    mike1962 says:

    The real power in United States government rests in the Supreme Court, with the only exception being in military engagements where the executive branch clearly holds power with a vice grip. There is no appeal after the Supreme Court.

    Of course, there is, de facto.

    One way to “appeal” is to amend the Constitution. Of course, this has been done several times.

    Another way, is to wait until certain justices die (or get impeached) and replace them with justices who reverse their decisions. This has been done many times with regards to justices dying and having their rulings overturned by a later court.

    Another way is for the executive branch to simply refuse or fail to enforce the law, which is a de facto “appeal.”

    Another way is to take up arms against the state, either by the citizens or by the military. The ultimate “appeal.”

    So there we have several ways to “appeal” SCOTUS, de facto.

    SCOTUS is not the final word. There is no final word.

  14. 14

    mike1962 @ 13: You make some good points. Below are my comments.

    Amending the Constitution is very difficult and rare.

    Replacing dead justices and overturning their opinions is certainly an option. This is exactly what I expect to happen with Scalia’s death. He will be replaced by a very liberal justice (think Ginsburg, Sotomayer, Kagan, and Breyer) whose deciding vote will be used to overturn the 2010 Second Amendment decision I referenced in an earlier comment. This just might be the most important aspect of the election. If Clinton wins, the Second Amendment will fall via a Supreme Court 5-4 edict.

    Not sure I follow your point about the executive branch refusing to enforce a law. Give me an example.

    Taking up arms by way of a revolution is always an option, but it is highly unpredictable and extremely dangerous for everyone involved. A last resort for sure.

    Death is the final word.

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I suggest to Americans (as a concerned observer), that your Supreme Court as it has evolved has become very dangerously unaccountable; de facto, a 3rd tier super-legislature with effectively, members for life and no real workable appeal from its decisions . . . except back to itself at a later time. Power of proper interpretation has been twisted into power to fabricate law on pretence of interpretation; backed by spurious but now entrenched theories. You need to consider amendments of term limits [say, 7 year terms to make such out of synch with the electoral cycle], impeachment and possibly a legislative super-majority veto. An upper age limit may also be worth considering, perhaps 76 years. KF

    PS: It is appointed unto men, once to die and after that to face eternal judgement. Cf Heb 9:27

  16. 16
    daveS says:

    KF,

    With 7-year terms, we would then be going through, on average, more than one nomination/confirmation process per year. The way things are now, that would be very difficult.

  17. 17
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, Having to put in fresh blood every year on the contrary looks like just what the doctor ordered. The ugly, dirty ideological, unelected unaccounted imperial judiciary and power block games being played (which corrodes the very point that a court should be about justice) would be exposed and some senators who need to be so sent would go home for playing that game. Better than maybe, just horribly maybe — why wasn’t there a proper autopsy? — what just happened with aid of a pillow. Anyway, I suspect knowing that year by year the senate and public have to address the question of fit and proper judges judging justly as a body would give sobering pause to those who are deeply polarising the body politic by manipulating the judicial bench. The fight over the amendment to do this would be revealing too. KF

  18. 18
    daveS says:

    KF,

    What’s this about an autopsy and pillow? I don’t get the reference.

    Anyway, I suspect the power block games &etc. would only escalate with near constant battles over justices. Our media and “news” outfits don’t understand the concept of sobering pause. Notice how our current presidential election looks like the Jerry Springer show?

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    DS,

    it looks like the abscess needs lancing and draining; lest it lead to what used to be called “blood poisoning.”

    The warping- cynical manipulation- perversion- and- corruption [all one unified act of demonic insanity!] of law, courts, legislatures and governments across our civilisation is leading us to ruin, and the leading Western nation is at the head of the pack.

    No change for the better will be without a bitter fight led by those with no scruples and everything to lose.

    Only an utterly incensed, determined electorate can put in what is needed.

    At the first yes, fights driven by that breakdown would escalate; starting with the change process. But that very process — by the very ruthlessness and dishonourable conduct on display to all [it has to be too big for the major media to spin] — would expose the unhealthy situation and break the credibility of the agendas that have pushed things there.

    Only a critical mass of a disgusted electorate determined to act under Para 2 of the US DoI could carry this off.

    The current election looks to be surfacing some of the same; I gather the utter, across the board breakdown of leadership is plain for all with working ears and eyes.

    Think about, were this anyone else s/he would face prosecution for gross negligence exposing critical security matters to hackers. In a world where hacking is so pervasive that whole industries exist to try to contain it. (Do I need to say, Stuxnet?)

    If the payment of nigh on 1/2 billion in de facto ransom does not wake people up to how far gone things are , only awful pain will.

    (My fear, as already announced, is the pain may have to be finding our civilisation broken-backed at the foot of a cliff. Try, say, putting financial means in the hands of the Mullahs for them to play EMP attack. [I don’t even more than mention the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the dominant evolutionary materialist scientism — why do we refuse to learn from the collapse of Athens in the Peloponnesian war and from Plato’s warning, written 40 years later?])

    The rise of an utter outsider in an election going up against a candidate in questionable health who should be facing prosecution on several fronts, speaks volumes.

    If a sobering wake-up call is not heard now (and no it is not an adequate answer to dismiss the insurgent neo-populist candidates as ignoramuses and buffoons . . . ), I shudder to think what is coming.

    Mix in, a Supreme Court judge dies under strange circumstances and no serious autopsy is performed . . . and, he died in “assassination and cover up central,” since 1963. (Wasn’t there a question mark over a presidential autopsy and/or its results back then too? At least, there was an autopsy that time. And, a film of the assassination.)

    Isn’t that rather obviously a red flag?

    Or, is the smoke from the fires lighting up the shadow shows in Plato’s Cave too laced with intoxicating, bewitching inhalants that make the myths projected on the opposite wall seem more real than they are?

    Similarly, manipulative agendas of media houses are now so obvious that they are forever exposed — save to the so thoroughly brainwashed and polarised that such have lost much of their will — yes, it is a will problem — to think straight.

    Frankly, it looks like only pain can wake some up from agit prop, shadow show bewitchment, hypnosis, intoxication and moral numbness — my comparison here is Berlin 1945.

    And a lot of the relevant media houses, power elites, institutions and agendas deserve to be utterly discredited.

    But then, that was already obvious from things like the in-progress biggest holocaust in history, all under colour of law given by the same Supreme court in need of reform, as far back as 1973. (And yes, the US law enables the wider global trend.)

    Where, blood guilt is perhaps the most corrupting, blinding, benumbing influence of all.

    Our civilisation is sick unto death, and reform is urgently needed. (I am frankly hoping it isn’t too late already.)

    Someone once warned as to how one can discern the signs of the sky but utterly fail to discern and soundly respond to the signs of the times.

    Where, we must not forget, lawfare is an act of corrupt war, perverting the sword of justice in service to an agenda.

    KF

  20. 20
    daveS says:

    KF,

    Mix in, a Supreme Court judge dies under strange circumstances and no serious autopsy is performed . . . and, he died in “assassination and cover up central,” since 1963. (Wasn’t there a question mark over a presidential autopsy and/or its results back then too? At least, there was an autopsy that time. And, a film of the assassination.)

    Isn’t that rather obviously a red flag?

    You’re suggesting that there was foul play and/or a coverup involved in Justice Scalia’s death? Have his wife and children commented?

  21. 21
    jdk says:

    Tinfoil hat time.

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    DS and JDK, I am saying that there is a serious failure of patent official duties of care in so high profile a death, and that in the very state that is at the centre of serious questions from 1963. The “tinfoil hat” sneer just above speaks telling volumes about poor judgement and lurking mentality, and not in favour of the one making it. The justice was a high state officer, protocol should have insisted on an autopsy, a proper one. That such did not happen is a warning flag. That some do not think something is odd in that failure, trips a further warning flag. That there is a resort to insinuating insanity or the like on pointing to this gap, trips a third warning flag. Among a forest of other warning flags on many, many matters. And, attack the man rhetoric does not change the substantial issues on the table. KF

  23. 23
    jdk says:

    From Fox News:

    Antonin Scalia suffered from coronary artery disease, obesity and diabetes, among other ailments that probably contributed to the justice’s sudden death, according to a letter from the Supreme Court’s doctor.

    Presidio County District Attorney Rod Ponton cited the letter Tuesday when he told The Associated Press there was nothing suspicious about the Feb. 13 death of the 79-year-old jurist. He said the long list of health problems made an autopsy unnecessary.

    Ponton had a copy of a letter from Rear Adm. Brian P. Monahan, the attending physician for members of Congress and the Supreme Court. The letter was to county Judge Cinderela Guevara, who conducted a death inquiry by phone and certified Scalia’s death.

    The letter dated Feb. 16 said Scalia’s many “significant medical conditions led to his death,” Ponton said.

    In the letter, Monahan listed more than a half-dozen ailments, including sleep apnea, degenerative joint disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and high blood pressure. Scalia also was a smoker, the letter said.

  24. 24
    daveS says:

    KF,

    As I’m sure you are aware, the family requested no autopsy.

    I think it’s a mistake attempt to connect this issue to corruption in the US government. Unless you have a specific theory with evidence, of course, rather than just “warning flags”.

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    DS,with all due respect; that is one time the family’s wishes (however well-intentioned) should not have counted. That too is an indication of the degree to which we need some rethinking. Pre existing conditions needed to have been confirmed as the actual cause of demise, through a proper autopsy, as a matter of course for a high official dying in office. It is astonishing that this seems to not be instantly recognised as a problem. KF

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: There is such a thing as leadership succession by subtle use of arsenic or the modern equivalent, Polonium or the like.

  27. 27
    Rationalitys bane says:

    KF, “PS: There is such a thing as leadership succession by subtle use of arsenic or the modern equivalent, Polonium or the like.”

    Yes, there is. And there is also such a thing as false accusations, unsubstantiated rumours and crazy conspiracy theories not supported by any evidence. The lack of an autopsy, when he had numerous pre-existing conditions, when his family didn’t want one, and when there was no evidence of foul play, is not evidence, except to the paranoid.

    When you bring up a link to the Kennedy assassination, you lose all credibility.

    I apologize for the harsh words, but sometimes the truth really must be spoken. You are better than that.

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    RB, you are simply playing at rhetoric of dismissal. My reaction is, how utterly naive; and oh there are conspiracy nutters cuts no ice. Polonium pellets in the hands of the Depts of Wet Affairs are a grim reality. And not just KGB and their Bulgarian subsidiary of a generation past. In C21 — and much before — it should be a well understood commonplace that any senior official dying in office is autopsied. That this was not done, that so many people don’t see why it should have been done as a matter of course and the shoot at the messenger distractors just underscore how far gone we are. As to 1963, you forget there was a double assassination, which is “interesting,” at minimum, never mind clap trap on grassy knolls and disputes about which way heads and exploding tissues should fly or magic bullets. Mind you, in the end all of this is a convenient side track from the real point: lawfare is an act of war, usurping the sword of justice in pursuit of ruthless agendas. It plays with terrible fire that may well blaze out of control. But then I am pessimistic about our civilisation’s prospects — we seem to be losing all sense of strategic circumstances and the need to act soberly and insightfully in the face of utterly dangerous times. Lastly, UD’s veterans take due note of what is being studiously evaded while rhetorical distractors are trotted out — symptomatic of the deeper complaint, cf 19 above. KF

  29. 29
    daveS says:

    KF,

    If you’re going to talk about corruption in the US government, why not stick to incidents where there is hard evidence in hand? Sure, Justice Scalia could have been poisoned, but all you have at this point is lurid speculation.

  30. 30
    Rationalitys bane says:

    KF, “RB, you are simply playing at rhetoric of dismissal.”

    Sorry, but questioning a crazy conspiracy theory about the murder of a Chief Justice with numerous serious health conditions, with no evidence to support it other than other crazy conspiracy examples is not rhetoric. It is honestly questioning the motive for spreading an unsubstantiated rumour.

    Polonium pellets in the hands of the Depts of Wet Affairs are a grim reality.”

    Yes. There has been one proven example in the last decades, amongst a 6 billion population and over 100 countries. This justice of the Supreme Court showed absolutely no symptoms of radiation poisoning, or arsenic poisoning, both of which are quite visible for someone constantly in the public lens. But you allude to these possibilities. Talk about crazy conspiracy theory.

    it should be a well understood commonplace that any senior official dying in office is autopsied..”

    Which simply isn’t true.

    That this was not done, that so many people don’t see why it should have been done as a matter of course and the shoot at the messenger distractors just underscore how far gone we are.”

    Nobody would be shooting at the messenger if he says that the policy should be changed to autopsy any public official who dies in office. But when he seriously suggests that a public official was murdered, with absolutely no evidence to support it other than the fact that he wasn’t autopsied, I start investing in tinfoil companies.

    With respect to the Kennedy assassination, you do realize that he was autopsied. That there was a commission to investigate the murder?

    Again, I apologize for my harsh words, but your suggestions warrant it.

  31. 31
    kairosfocus says:

    DS & RB:

    First things first, as WJM has given us a handy point of departure for habits of thought and argument that seem to be all too commonly seen nowadays — I do this because I cannot but notice a persistent pattern of tangents and an almost comical twisting of what should be obvious:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-614932

    There is a focal issue regarding how many are approaching issues that is important enough to call attention back to.

    As WJM opens and concludes the OP:

    Probably one of the most daunting aspects of carrying on debates either about proper critical thinking, theism vs atheism, or intelligent design and its implications is the seeming implacable nature of those we debate here and elsewhere. It most often seems that no amount of logic, evidence or even reasonable discourse makes one iota of difference to our interlocutors; however, I think this is probably because most of those who will take the time to seek our position out and criticize it on its home turf are already fully committed against such positions, and are often emotionally entrenched . . . . Every once in a while it’s nice to be reminded that, sometimes, reason and evidence can actually get through to a person.

    The locking into schemes of thought, the polarisation that blinds to focal facts and cogent reasoning, or leads to a pattern of ignoring such and triggering off on tangents that veer off to side-tracks etc are not signs of sound intellectual health.

    We need to ask some serious questions about the habits of thought and argument that have become all too typical.

    For, such habits will distract from, cloud over, polarise against and lead people away from what should be priority.

    As an antidote at worldviews level, here are some issues at 101 level that may open up fresh thinking about key matters.

    We need to cultivate intellectual virtues and a sober-minded seriousness about pivotal matters, rather than allowing our intellectual habits to be shaped by patterns of distraction, resistance to facts and logic, and polarisation. Such things can only lead to marches of stubborn folly, ultimately over the cliff.

    Now, on this thread’s focal issue, I draw attention to 19 above:

    it looks like the abscess needs lancing and draining; lest it lead to what used to be called “blood poisoning.”

    The warping- cynical manipulation- perversion- and- corruption [all one unified act of demonic insanity!] of law, courts, legislatures and governments across our civilisation is leading us to ruin, and the leading Western nation is at the head of the pack.

    No change for the better will be without a bitter fight led by those with no scruples and everything to lose.

    Only an utterly incensed, determined electorate can put in what is needed . . .

    By 28 above, I noted:

    Mind you, in the end all of this is a convenient side track from the real point: lawfare is an act of war, usurping the sword of justice in pursuit of ruthless agendas. It plays with terrible fire that may well blaze out of control. But then I am pessimistic about our civilisation’s prospects — we seem to be losing all sense of strategic circumstances and the need to act soberly and insightfully in the face of utterly dangerous times. Lastly, UD’s veterans take due note of what is being studiously evaded while rhetorical distractors are trotted out — symptomatic of the deeper complaint, cf 19 above.

    In short, the course of the thread aptly illustrates the wider, deeper problem of distractive-ness. And this in the face of sobering issues that could trigger horrible consequences for our civilisation.

    Now on minor points, it seems someone failed to notice that I pointed out earlier that in 1963 at least there was an autopsy (and alluded to the Warren Commission etc) while resorting to self-admitted harsh rhetoric — i.e. tactics of polarisation.

    Likewise, I am not alleging that there was explicit corruption in the recent case [i.e. the repeated projection of conspiracist theorising and mischaracterisation illustrates the tendency to erect and attack strawman caricatures . . . ]. Where, it should be plain that the rise of lawfare is the capital, focal example of corrupt behaviour affecting arms of government, policy and the body politic as a whole. In the US and globally.

    Instead of alleging that say 1963 was a coup by assassination or that Scalia’s recent death is another demonstration of corruption, I only pointed to an astonishing lack of a sound protocol for the latter case that should have long since been routine for deaths in office of high officials. For obvious reasons. Never mind the feelings of families, there is a prevailing circumstance, death in office of high state officials.

    My point for using the illustration was and is, that with a double assassination and a lingering cloud of doubts since 1963, one would imagine that Texas would have taken the lead to put in place a rigorous protocol for making sure as to what really happened when a high official dies in office — for which a sound autopsy is notoriously the world class standard, to be followed by a proper coroner’s inquest and report, preferably with a [grand?] jury. And, the Federal level of the USA should be hot on Texas’ heels in this matter. But nearly sixty years past 1963, it is astonishing to find absence of a sound protocol.

    That is already a warning flag.

    Failure to see that lack of such a protocol is an index of deep rooted problems is a further warning flag. (And no, wishes of the family or the like should not prevail in such a case. As for the Polonium pellet case, and I should add the 1981 attempt on a Pope’s life, the history that suggests Arsenic as leadership change device etc, the point is that where power is at stake there are ruthless entities willing to expend disproportionate resources to get rid of figures who are “inconvenient.” There is a further history of judicial murder and character assassination by convenient scandal etc, etc that I did not bother to highlight. That should be further reason to see why sound protocols are needed.)

    Rhetoric of polarisation and contempt (recall, above: tinfoil hats, from someone who seems to have deployed such as a useful derailing talking point then has tip-toed away . . . ?) is the third warning flag.

    All the meanwhile, there is an almost studious evasion of the pivotal issue: the rise of lawfare.

    That is the biggest warning flag of all.

    KF

  32. 32
    daveS says:

    KF,

    In short, the course of the thread aptly illustrates the wider, deeper problem of distractive-ness. And this in the face of sobering issues that could trigger horrible consequences for our civilisation.

    I think you bear primary responsibility for these “distractions”. If you had merely said that autopsies should be required in cases such as Justice Scalia’s death, fine, I can understand the rationale.

    Does it help your case to go further and raise the possibility that Scalia was murdered with the “aid of a pillow” or perhaps polonium? I don’t think so.

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, How many times have I emphatically underscored the need for the relevant protocol, in response to dismissals? Where have I suggested use of Polonium in this case (as opposed to the notorious case of the KGB junior varsity wet affairs people in London)? And the just horribly maybe points to an oddity remarked at the time, which should give pause — maybe is there to show what needed to have been ruled out by a proper sound standard procedure. The basic point is clear enough, something is seriously defective in protocols tied to deaths in office of high officials. Something that should not be the case. In short, the warning flags are tripped. Where, again, it is noticeable that this is still off on a tangent; lawfare is almost comically side stepped (we can hear echoes of oh we are not interested in that subject . . . though, due to devastating impact that subject is interested in us all). The biggest flag of all is tripped. KF

  34. 34
    daveS says:

    KF,

    This is probably hopeless. I’ll just point to my #32 once more and leave it there.

  35. 35
    kairosfocus says:

    DS, no, it is the constant distraction, distorting, denigration and polarisation pattern here at UD, across the webs and in the media as well as policy and political debates that is utterly destructive and enables marches of folly. Much of the current electoral cycle in the US reflects this, already a serious and poor sign. There are many major issues on the table before our civilisation that are routinely reacted to by the same tactics. This shows the failure to understand our times and what we need to do. In this immediate thread, the big issue from OP on is lawfare, usurping the sword of justice under false colours of law to impose destructive, oppressive and ruinous or even tyrannical agendas. Notice from OP: “For quite some time the American Left has been busy turning American law into a partisan political weapon.” Glance above, very little responsiveness to it. Big red flag warning. KF

    PS: I have said enough for it to be clear that I am not indulging conspiracism and am highlighting a failure of transparency in governance that historically has been a serious issue. I stand on that, and insist that the persistent distraction from a major issue is a big red warning flag.

  36. 36
    Rationalitys bane says:

    KF, “Where have I suggested use of Polonium in this case (as opposed to the notorious case of the KGB junior varsity wet affairs people in London)?”

    here: “PS: There is such a thing as leadership succession by subtle use of arsenic or the modern equivalent, Polonium or the like.”

    This, in addition to references to the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories certainly led me to believe that you were inferring that there may have been foul play involved in Scalia’s death. An overweight eighty year old man with diabetes, high blood pressure and serious heart problems. A death in which the attending police, paramedics and Doctor who declared him dead saw no evidence of unnatural death.

    If I misinterpreted the point you were trying to make, I apologize. But why not simply say that it is your opinion that autopsies should be performed on all government officials who die in office to allay any fears of wrong doing?

    But, as with DS, I will leave it at this. I can’t see anything productive coming out of any further discussion on the subject.

    I hope you have had a good weekend.

    KM.

  37. 37
    kairosfocus says:

    RB,

    on fair comment, the distraction and distortion continue.

    (Note, I obviously wrote to a highly specific case in London with KGB and its junior varsity for wet work; I expect reasonable familiarity. Where, the polonium case points to entire state sponsored assassination programmes that obviously represent major sustained investments of at least dozens of millions going back decades [the obvious reason I cited it], I might as well highlight the poison pellet case too . . . and, do you recall why kings used to have cup bearers/ food tasters? And much more? Borgia powder, anyone?)

    Using this case, I pointed to the fact that where power exists as an issue there has as fact been resort to disproportionate effort of the ruthless. I doubt that the powerful ruthless have gone away. Knowing that a world class autopsy is likely to expose secret assassination and raise the question, who benefits, should be a significant deterrent.

    My explicit point was and is, it should be a standard protocol that high officials dying in office should be autopsied. Period.

    That is my point on this, as has been repeatedly stated.

    And yet again, we see the slip, slide away from the key issue on the table, lawfare.

    That trips the biggest red flag, how insistently we see that distractive slip slide.

    Let me clip 35, as this case is a small part of a very widespread problem:

    it is the constant distraction, distorting, denigration and polarisation pattern here at UD, across the webs and in the media as well as policy and political debates that is utterly destructive and enables marches of folly. Much of the current electoral cycle in the US reflects this, already a serious and poor sign. There are many major issues on the table before our civilisation that are routinely reacted to by the same tactics. This shows the failure to understand our times and what we need to do. In this immediate thread, the big issue from OP on is lawfare, usurping the sword of justice under false colours of law to impose destructive, oppressive and ruinous or even tyrannical agendas. Notice from OP: “For quite some time the American Left has been busy turning American law into a partisan political weapon.” Glance above, very little responsiveness to it. Big red flag warning.

    KF

Leave a Reply