atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#7559: Post-constitutional oligarchy?

I don't know where to start with all this.

I guess we can go, first off, with the democrat bill to nationalize all elections. It basically removes anything that might have a hint of possibly making it slightly difficult to cast a fraudulent ballot in any election in the United States, from president right on down to the local dog catcher in a remote town that's so small it can only be characterized as a "half-horse town".

Four people voted in the Little Dotsburg mayoral election, which is two more voters than actually live in the town, but THE ELECTION WAS FORTIFIED! and so you must not question its validity. (Of course the democrat won.)

We're told that "it has no chance" of passing in the senate. I've heard that tale before, though; it's been told to us time and again by republicans, all through the Bush and Obama years: "We're going to fight it! We're going to fight it! Oh, too bad; it turns out we don't have the votes to stop it! Next time, elect more republicans!" I expect the republicans in the senate to stop this nonsense the same way I expect to advance to 60th level and become a demigod: NOT.

Once that thing is law, the very next step for the oligarchy will be to make the private ownership of guns illegal. "Second Amendment"? What century are you living in? This government is not beholden to the Constitution. The fortification of the 2020 election was an end-run around it, and now that they've done it, there's quite literally nothing stopping them. The supreme court is not holding anyone accountable. The FBI is in lockstep with the oligarchy. The so-called "justice department" is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the oligarchy. With the election process now completely and permanently neutered, they can make up whatever numbers they want, and the only people who will be elevated to political posts will be pre-approved oligarchs.

And once we are no longer allowed to own guns?

Just you wait and see how quickly the rest of the Bill of Rights goes down the same rat-hole. They've already taken away "freedom to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances"; they're calling that "insurrection" now. Of course it only applies to certain sectors of the population, but when government can get away with using lethal force to quell its critics--especially if it leaves alone those who break the law in support of it--it's no longer either a democracy or a republic, but a dictatorship. Pure fascism, in fact.

So, no doubt, the next few years (at least) are gonna suck.

Even so, there is cause for optimism.
Tyranny can do unthinkable damage. But the one thing it cannot do is sustain itself. Or keep hearts and minds captive forever.

Yes, we are now headed into totalitarian rule--without even bothering to change our "freedom" and "democracy" labels. But that road has a lot of twists, turns, and branches. Many things can happen. Nothing is inevitable. We have an American history and awesome historic documents as guidance--which no other country does. Even some negative things may be good medicine against would-be tyrants. For instance, our economy is already so wrecked and wretched that leftist utopians will likely create hyperinflation before they'll create whatever sort of malignant paradise they think they're aiming for.
Emphasis mine.

Here's the deal: America's economy is groaning under the weight of massive national debt, a ludicrous level of regulation, confiscatory taxation, and uncontrolled immigration; yet for the four years Trump was in the White House, the economy was booming. Trump whittled away around the edges of three of those four issues I mentioned and the economy came roaring back because that's how powerful the American economy is.

So powerful, in fact, that the Democrats did everything they could to crush it as soon as Biden was installed, because the one thing the oligarchy cannot survive is a robust and content middle class. That's one of many reasons that the Obama years were so much like the 1970s, why we were hectored about "the new normal" and why the democrat-media complex kept harping on how GDP growth of a couple percent per year was the best we could ever expect to see. They don't want Americans to be comfortable; they want Americans poor, cold, and hungry--because comfortable people will vote for their own interests rather than voting for the interests of the oligarchs.

And the American economy will not run well under the oligarchy. It can't--it's not just that the oligarchs are not nearly as smart as they think they are (though that's a factor) but that the oligarchs' policies are meant to concentrate as much of the country's wealth in their hands as is possible. And if that's so...who pays for everything?

I'm not kidding. Let's just say that the top 5% of incomes have 90% of the country's wealth; with 10% split among the remaining 95% of the population, how does that economy function? It sure as hell doesn't function like capitalism. Feudalism might work, but if that gets bad enough you have 95% of the population stringing up that 5% of the population pretty damn quickly, and even if the 5% have armed guards, how long does it take before those guards are overwhelmed by the sheer press of bodies? If people get really desperate, they stop caring about being shot: "I'm gonna die either way! Fuck it!"

The American economy functions the way it does in spite of government regulation, not because of it. Under the regime that is planned for us, all that goes out the window. It throws sand in the capitalist gearbox, and it rapidly grinds itself into junk.

Like the $15 minimum wage, for example.

* * *

This post explains why our sitting government-media complex is so adamant that the 2020 elections were fair and completely free of fraud. To acknowledge the fortification of the election in any serious way would be to admit that the sitting government has no actual legitimacy.

You'll note that the Time article about the fortification of the 2020 elections did not go into detail about changing vote tallies and trucking in preprinted ballots from out-of-state and suitcases of ballots being taken out from under tables and republican poll watchers being thrown out and all the other fuckery that took place. No, the article was written in such a way as to make the conspiracy to steal the 2020 election sound like a noble cause, without acknowledging that the acts perpetrated by that conspiracy were, y'know, felonies.

They're all so insistent on having people state on the record that the election was free and fair precisely because it was not, and everyone knows it...and if it wasn't a free and fair election then our sitting government is illegitimate and all its actions have no authority behind them. In theory.

The legitimacy of government is a slippery concept. The American oligarchy is operating from the position that "might makes right", and they have the might: the entire law enforcement apparatus of the USA plus its military, which are not insignificant. The one thing that keeps us from civil war right now is that the people who would fight the oligarchy lack a great many things, including public opinion. Not enough people understand what happened in November, or January. And because a civil war is an awful thing to contemplate, I'm glad one isn't happening.

The oligarchy also operates under the thinnest veneer of legitimacy: "We got the most votes!" I've talked about this before; I can't get my head around it, and I'm actually kind of glad of that, except that it keeps me from explaining what that means. I feel like if I could just see it, even for a moment, I might understand how to explain why stealing an election (any election!) is a bad thing to do and does not actually confer the right to govern; but all I've got is a stubborn, "Because!" and that doesn't win in Debate Club.

But one thing is manifest: the fact that they absolutely cannot allow the issue even to be discussed indicates how afraid they are. If the elections had actually been as free and fair as they claim, the calls for audits would have been heeded and the resulting evidence trotted around like a showhorse: "See? See? We told you fucking morons that the election wasn't rigged!" The democrats and the republicans and the media would have been talking about all the evidence showing how fair the election was on every damned news and opinion show for every last day between the election and the inauguration. The courts would have heard the cases just to put the judicial imprimatur on the election. The press would have highlighted it every night for a month: "Do you see how much of a crank Trump is? Every one of these cases were heard by the courts, costing the taxpayers millions of dollars, and for what?"

Instead? A stern insistence that the elections were free and fair and SHUT UP AND STOP TALKING ABOUT IT, prole, if you know what's good for you; the courts dismissing the cases entirely on technical or procedural grounds rather than hearing evidence (because the presentation of evidence in the official record was the one thing they really, really needed to avoid!); and the media reporting the dropping of the cases and then never mentioning them again, not even when they could use them to make Trump look bad. ("Ha! Ha! Trump lost everything!") The mere fact that questioning the validity of the election is grounds for being canceled and ostracised is itself a demonstration of how afraid the establishment and the oligarchy are.

They fear it, because if the general public twigs to the fact that their rule is illegitimate--

But the insurrection narrative is crumbling even though the democrat-media complex is all-in on it; what will happen to the election narrative, I wonder?

* * *

Of course, if the election had actually been free and fair, and Trump lost, he would not have challenged it in the first place. That's another fact we're not supposed to discuss.

* * *

This is an amusing bit and I thought I'd blockquote the writer's bullet list:
* eBay bans the sale of some 'problematic' Dr. Seuss books, while at the same time Mein Kampf, various National Socialist and communist devotionalia, and the black supremacist racist ramblings of Louis Farrakhan are sold freely;
* a supposed "$GROUP lives matter" anti-police movement leads to skyrocketing crime, of which the primary victims are law-abiding members of $GROUP;
* in the name of "equity", Asian-American applicants to elite colleges face a level of discrimination that rivals what my fellow Jews experienced before WW II;
* the same media noise machine that is quick to accuse everyone of homophobia is completely silent when a Chinese court rules that calling homosexuality a mental illness is acceptable; or calls everybody wary of radical islamism an 'islamophobe' while having nary a word about the persecution of Uyghur Muslims by the CCP regime;
* [I could go on for hours]
* but the one that takes the cake is the Big Woke fog to cover what amounts to class warfare by the gentry class/Brahmandarins against the rest of us. Its endgame is what Joel Kotkin wrote a priceless book about: "The Coming Of Neo-Feudalism"
Someone made the point that the democrats and leftists are not actually hypocrites, at least not in the conventional sense. I can't find the article now but it made sense to me.

The thing is, some of them are intentionally and brazenly hypocritical, for two reasons: first, because they get off on the outraged reactions of their political enemies; but second and more importantly, because exempting themselves from their own rules demonstrates how powerful they are. Hypocrisy is about the exercise of power: "I am in charge and I say that you may not do X, but of course I am exempt from the rule because I'm a better person than you are." For whatever value of "better person" you care to use. Usually, though, the value comes down to how much they say they care.

The democrats are exempt from being accused of sexual harassment because they care about womens' rights. The democrats are exempt from being accused of racism because they care about the rights of blacks and minorities.

Bill Clinton got a pass from the left for his blatant sexual predation towards a subordinate because of the little (d) after his name. Clarence Thomas was nearly denied his rightful seat on the supreme court because one woman made up a story about a pubic hair on a can of koka kola.

* * *

I think everyone knows, or at least used to know, a Blandy.
I can only speculate the causes of Blandy's behavior:

* If Blandy could blame someone else, then they weren't responsible for their situation. Someone or something else was responsible. They could live their life blaming others.
* How could Blandy get attention? Having problems got people to pay attention.
* By having problems, Blandy could get sympathy from others. Without problems, what would start the sympathy flowing from others?
Blandy never wants solutions. You can offer Blandy advice by the truckload, and Blandy will answer each suggestion with an explanation as to why that won't work. And he will always have reasons he can't do what you suggest, and those reasons will always be other people doing things, apparently, to keep him down, just to be mean. It's never the result of any of his own actions.

The simple fact is that some people cannot solve their problems because too much of their identities are wrapped up in those problems. If Blandy does not have X problem, then he has no excuse, and must account for himself; and in doing so he might discover that he's a total f-ing loser, which would be bad for his self-esteem. Besides, it's so much nicer to have everyone pay attention to you and give you sympathy and do all kinds of things for you, without you being obligated to show anything more than token gratitude for it.

One of my favorite quotes from Heinlein's book Have Space Suit--Will Travel is when Clifford's father tells him, "Money problems can always be solved by a man not frightened of them." In fact, the statement is even more true if you take the word "money" out: Problems can always be solved by a man not frightened of them.

It's easy to get yourself into a panic over some issue, and then sit there in despair over all the seemingly insurmountable problems that beset you. But if all you do is sit there and suffer, and not do anything to change your situation, you're not being brave; you're being stupid for not trying to fix things.

You're not a loser for failing. You're a loser for not trying in the first place. For sitting there and thinking up reasons that you'll fail, rather than getting off your fat ass and trying something.

* * *

Apropos of not much, one of the funniest moments I ever saw on PBS was when Bob Ross' predecessor, Bill Alexander, said, "One day, it will be my time to go; and the undertaker will hit me: 'This son of a gun! He is still smiling!'" And then he shook the "mighty brush" at the camera with a big grin on his face.

* * *

The oligarchy is pretty screwy, though.
The very nature of how we can see that [Jill Biden is] desperate to be 'in the spotlight' and her insistence on being the new "Edith Wilson". Either way, this will not end well, unless the payoff for Jill-the-Shrew is ginourmous enough to let her live out her life in luxury that we fucking peasants can't even imagine. I mean iit'll have to be insane to pay her off, seeings that she doesn't give a fuck that her one remaining son fucked his sister in law, was grooming and or trying to actively fuck his neice... all in all a perfect example of a corrupt Oligarchical Inbred Psycho Family from hell....

Shiiiiiiiiiit.. even the Leatherface Clan wasn't this fucked up.
SIC except that I changed the emphasis.

This is part of a piece why maybe it's not such a bad idea to take the "football" away from Joe Biden.

I was worried about congress' expressed desire to rein in the president's power to order military strikes until I got the facts and realized that these are powers that probably should never have been given to the president in the first place.

I'm not so sure about the "football" except for the fact that Biden's brain is cottage cheese. In practical terms I don't see congress ordering nuclear strikes, but the rationale for the president having that ability is the fact that we live in a world where an ICBM can destroy a city about half an hour after it's launched, and there's simply no time for congress to convene and debate the advisability of voting a war resolution out of committee on an ad-hoc basis in order to answer the possible agression from (pfoom)



* * *

Three "unintended consequences" quick hits:

Manhattan office rent prices are cratering due to oversupply. Force people out of their habits and show them how effortlessly they can work from home, and you too can ruin your city's real estate market.

Ten Walgreens stores in the bay area are closing. Make shoplifting legal, and the stores will go away, never to return, not even if you make shoplifting illegal again.

"Renewable energy" is basically a scam. If you're in the business of manufacturing solar panels and windmills, it's great for you. But if you lived in Texas over the last month, not so much.

* * *

The people who would rule us are so incompetent, they make the Keystone Kops look like an efficient and effective law enforcement organization. The media naturally did not report on what a fiasco the thing was, and there's no way I can excerpt enough of the article to summarize that in any way that makes sense.

But:
Schumer reached out to McConnell and the Trump lawyers with his proposal to put the pin back in the grenade that included abandoning the admission of witnesses in exchange for allowing Herrera Beutler's statement into the official record. Trump's lawyers happily agreed, knowing that they were now mere hours away from victory. After a few more reprisals in political grandstanding, President Trump was acquitted for an unprecedented second time by a vote of 57-43.
Trump's lawyers, sadly, were not in this for anything other than securing an aquittal.

But of course, if this deal had not been struck, then the republicans could have called all sorts of witnesses and tied up the entire democrat legislative agenda for months.

* * *

Anyway, it's FRIDAY NIGHT! We can put a bunch of nonsense to the side and just try to have a relaxing evening.
Subscribe

  • #7604: Well, she died doing what she loved, I guess?

    What else can you say? Heavily edited quote: "[R]adical pro-abortion supporter Maria de Valle Gonzalez Lopez died during ... her "dream"…

  • #7603: Absolutely correct

    I have never liked that band. Apparently the music of Rush works well as a contraceptive. The music of Rush is marked by erratic signature changes,…

  • #7602: Still not gonna take it.

    "The flu has mysteriously vanished while the number of people who got covid was within the normal range of the number of people who get the flu…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments