Are you sure you want to do this?

(written 30th September, 2023)

“Lock her up, lock her up”

Remember 2016? Remember how thousands of the forgotten, thousands of souls who had their dreams torn apart and sent down the shitter by the neo liberal new world order, took out their frustrations on a single presidential candidate?

The deplorables.

The millions of Americans whose jobs had been sold overseas, or usurped by a computer, or bidded out for lower wages to the grey market marching across the southern border.

“Lock her up, lock her up”

Remember how this was the most egregious thing to ever happen? How the mere suggestion of attacking your political opponent was now the equivalent to the fall of the democratic order as we know it?

Strange how democracy never seemed to cater to those deplorable folk.

The ones who lost their jobs, whose towns became shells of their former selves, whose social order was ripped apart and replaced with a void. Their sons maimed in wars which should never have been fought. Their daughters addicted to drugs which should never have been prescribed. Whole communities, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters, sacrificed to the whims of the political elite.

“Lock her up, lock her up”

I don’t know whether these people really meant that. Maybe they did. Even so, it might surprise you to know, I actually don’t give a shit about the feelings of Hillary Clinton. We all know this woman (who once bemoaned of being “broke” shortly after her husband’s presidency) was never in any danger of having to answer a single uncomfortable question, nevermind spend a single second on the claustrophobic side of a prison cell.

Which brings me to Trump.

He’s currently facing more years in prison than he has left to live. And that’s serious. Not just because it is quite clearly political. Not just because it is quite clear they are scared of him. But because of what it means for the rest of us going forward.

No-one is safe.

If the former president cannot protect himself from a political persecution more suited to the ways of the DPRK than the USA, then what hope do the rest of us have.

There will be those who disagree with me on this. Fine. I have but one question:

Are you sure you want to do this?

Are you sure you want to try to imprison your political opponent, one who at worst a significant minority of the country is willing to die for? One who is in every poll the outright favourite to be your direct opponent in November 2024, and in some polls is returned to the White House in January of 2025. Are you sure you want to break that democratic norm you claim you are so fond of?

Are you sure you want to play this game?

“Lock her up, lock her up”

The reason I ask, is because I want you to think about it. And if your answer is “yes”, then don’t be surprised if the ghosts of 2016 come back to haunt you.

Albeit with different pronouns.

“Lock him up, lock him up, lock him up…”

"If it's not the crusades, it's the cartoons"

Take out the Caitlyn Jenner jokes, and they'd bitch about the jokes about gay men with little dogs. Take out those and they'd be offended by the jokes about fat people. It's the same old shit from the leftist outrage brigade, who claim every battle for "rights" as the final one, but behind every victory banner lays a protest poster bemoaning the oppression of yet another exciting new victim group.  When questioned about cartoon drawings of Mohammed and whether more generally he was worried about western values provoking Islamic outrage, George W. Bush (summoning a level of wisdom clearly well above his personal average) replied that he wasn't concerned:  "It's always something. If it's not the crusades, it's the cartoons."  SJWs have clearly adopted this tactic from their strangest bedfellows in the eclectic leftist alliance. The only difference is when they find a shiny new pet to valiantly defend, they leave the old ones in a box by the side of the road. Which for the first 3 letters of the ever expanding alliance acronym (the L's, G's, & B's) is good and bad news. The bad news is no-one gives a shit if Ricky Gervais makes a joke at your expense anymore. The good news is you can join the rest of us in civil society.  If it's not the crusades, it's the cartoons.  If it's not the gays, it's the transgendered.  I personally can't wait to see where they go from here. It's always new & creative, and often downright illogical.  And don't worry T's. Once the left has become bored of you like they have with all the others and left you by the side of the road like an unwanted Christmas pet, the residents of reality will welcome you with open arms where you will finally receive the thing you've always wanted.  To be treated like a normal fucking person.

2016: THE YEAR LEFT WING LUNACY RENDERED REALITY REDUNDANT

"It's like the childish politics that have infiltrated the Democrats, who blame the Trump presidency entirely on the Russians. I think it's reasonably likely that there was some sort of Russian intervention, and it's even possible that at some points it made the difference. What it didn't do was create 40 million people out of nothing."

- John Gray ("Talking Politics" podcast)

Just throwing it out there: if you keep calling Trump a moron, one day people are going to believe it. Then you're going to have to explain to your grandkids how the "most qualified presidential candidate in US history" got beaten by a moron.

And you'll say it's because the country is misogynist, and then you'll have to explain how a bunch of misogynists elected the most women to Congress in history.

And you'll say it's because the country is racist. And then you'll have to explain how a bunch of racists elected the largest amount of minorities across the board to Congress in history, including 4 black female judges in Alabama.

And then you'll say it's because some Russian's bought Facebook ads. And then you'll have to explain how some Macedonian nerds with a lower ad spend than your aunties book club influenced 50 odd million people to vote the opposite way they would have otherwise.

And then you'll say they only needed to influence about 70,000 votes in 3 swing states to take advantage of the electoral college system. And then you'll have to explain why the Russians were better at electoral math than the most qualified presidential candidate in US history.

At which point your offspring, if they truly love you, will get you round the clock professional care. If they don't, they'll nominate you to run as a Democrat for Congress. At least then you'll be contained with other people suffering the same delusions as yourself.

NO, HEALTHCARE ISN'T A "RIGHT" (just something a first world country should provide)

Neither side frames it's argument well in this debate. No, healthcare shouldn't be an enshrined right as Sen. Sanders claims. When legislating positive rights (ie. rights which demand an action or service of others) great care must be taken, as positive rights often inherently infringe upon the rights of others. This is why the US Bill Of Rights is written almost expressly as a charter of negative rights.

But, Sen. Paul does not do his argument any service by invoking slavery. Besides from being uncouth, it is not a particularly good comparison, given the amount doctors are paid (to mention but one obvious example of many issues). But as a student of and self-appointed protector of the constitution, he has a greater understanding of positive and negative rights, and their relevant impacts upon a society, than most.

Here's the thing though: Not every thing you want your country to do has to be mandated as a "right". Rights should be reserved for the bare necessities required to keep the country going and, as I've stated before, largely negative rights.

That said, there are some things that should be a prerequisite for a first world country, and one of those things is basic health care. Public healthcare doesn't need to be shoehorned into the constitution to be considered something a government should provide. But as one of the richest countries in the world the US, like all the others, should find the money to make sure that if you unexpectedly fall ill, it doesn't result in bankruptcy. That's just basic compassion.

PATRIARCHY

patriachy

ˈpeɪtrɪɑːki/    noun

1. Social organisation marked by the supremacy of the father in the family or society.

2. The systematic subjugation of women and minorities for the sole benefit of (usually white) males, via the implementation and flawless execution of a conspiracy of such sheer scope and complexity that to allege cooperation with it's existence could only be reasonably seen as a compliment.

ARE THERE LIMITS TO FREE SPEECH?

"Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favour of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."

- Noam Chomsky

To legislate against "hate speech" is not just a violation against the principles of free speech, it is a full step beyond legislating against thought crime. To criminalise my thoughts or opinions would be egregious enough, but hate speech legislation actually skips that step and jumps straight to punishing me for the thoughts of others.

What I say doesn't actually have to be hateful, violent, or discriminatory, it just has to be interpreted as such by others. Worse still, in Australia, the act of expression in question needs to merely upset the intellectually low hanging fruit by being "offensive".

But at what point do words go from being merely unpleasant to hateful? And what exactly constitutes "inciting violence"?

Is it enough for me to merely insinuate that I wouldn't be particularly upset if harm were to come your way, or do I have to give someone specific instructions on how to cause you harm? At what point does a statement stop being mere words passing my lips and become the act of violence which inflicted injury upon you? Put simply, when do words become actions?

Three options:

1. In my head
2. In the head of the third party, or
3. They don't

If it's #1 then we're legislating thought crime. If it's #2, then surely I cannot be reasonably held accountable for the independent decisions of another person. And if it's #3, then we are attempting to outlaw the supernatural, criminalising that which does not exist.