Jesus,
the Socialist
And
Other Lefty Rationalizations
©2022
Ross Williams
A common tactic
among idiot leftists when trying to rationalize their leftism is to
claim that their leftism is actually supported by the tenets of what
the right holds dear.
Leftists love, for example, robbing
Peter to pay Paul through various government programs like medicaid,
social security and the entire welfare umbrella, and so they claim
that Joshua bar Joseph, who most people refer to as Jesus, would have
wanted it that way. And they entirely miss the point of christian
philosophy in doing so. JbJ commanded YOU to feed the hungry, clothe
the naked, and take care of granny if she weren't capable of taking
care of herself, not have the government do it for you. He
specifically directed his followers to ignore what the government had
to say about it. Render unto Caesar... render unto god...
Christianity is
all about free will. You must have the option of doing both
good and bad, and you must choose to do good. That's what gets you
points. If you are made to do good by a government which taxes you
and does virtuous things with your tax money, that doesn't count.
You don't get any gold stars on your St Peter Report Card, even in
the exceptionally unlikely event the government does legitimately
virtuous things with your taxes.
Almost as common,
and just as anti-intellectual, is what leftists claim America's
founding fathers would support in our modern political climate. Not
missing her cue, Julie Werner-Simon, walking and quacking like a
commie, opined smugly and very incorrectly on the op-ed pages of the
LA Times about what “the framers” would be doing about Kung Flu.
She claimed to be a former federal prosecutor as well as ConLaw
professor so you'd think she'd know better than to make the pitch she
made. She parlayed her big government sensibilities and poisoned
concept of constitutional law into a defense of big government
solutions to problems they were given no power to address. Because
our Constitution was all about promoting Big Government in unlimited
fashion.
What is it with
ConLaw professors, anyway? We had one a few years ago who grew up to
be president and discovered the elusive “Phone and Pen clause” in
Article II. Julie exhorts us on the benefits of studying our
history, and completely disavows any familiarity with the subject.
Apparently,
according to Werner-Simon, if Ben Franklin, Tom Jefferson and Jim
Madison were alive today, they'd be lining up for their fifth booster
shot and wearing three masks at all times, even in private. They'd
be indescribably grateful to the government for compelling them to do
so, and not by law, either, but by executive decree. Because these
gentlemen “conceived of a political structure where those involved
would be virtuous.” “For the common good.”
Well, these
gentlemen did conceive of such a political structure. This is her
perigee to correctness.
She
recites Al Hamilton's admonition about those worthy of American
leadership as those “who
possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common
good of the society.”
Of
course, being correct about these things is not a great feat of
intellectual prowess, which puzzles me why she couldn't get any
nearer to correctness. The intellectual founders of our definition
of governance wrote extensively about these things. And then acted
on it.
Much
more succinct is the ironic statement [paraphrased] made by US
President number two, John Adams: A
free people must be a virtuous people.
It's ironic because he was the brainchild behind the anti-freedom,
anti-virtue Alien and Sedition Acts, in which – pulling a page from
today's democrats – criticism of the government or its officers is
a crime against the State. Like modern democrats' use of Big Tech
social media, the Adams administration used the mass media of the
time as his henchmen to dig up and uncover that criticism. The only
individual in The State that could lawfully be criticized was Adams'
personal friend but partisan enemy, Vice-President Thos Jefferson.
But
yes, the principles on which this free nation was founded did indeed
depend on the public pulling together for the common good. The only
thing was, this pulling
together for the common good
was not to be compelled by government. The “framers” were very
very very very very very clear about that. The “common good” was
defined as having as little government, and thus as little government
compulsion, as possible. Free will was just as important to our
founding fathers as it was to Joshua bar Joseph. You don't have
inalienable rights without free will. And you certainly cannot
attain the “virtue” necessary for a self-governing free people
without free will. You must have good and bad options available, and
the citizen must choose the good option, without government standing
over one's shoulder whispering threats of penalty into one's
ear.
Compulsion denies virtue in politics as in religion.
What
they were against even more than government compulsion was the
elimination of public debate in determining what the common good
actually consisted of. The entire foundation of our nation was –
tellingly – built upon the concept of there being multiple, indeed
contradictory, “common goods”. That's why states were given wide
latitude in how they handled their own affairs, and why county and
municipal authorities had even more latitude than that. The “common
good” could be, and usually was, quite different in one state than
another, one county than the one next to it, and in two towns in the
same county.
In
short, everything that modern leftists claim as the “common good”
that our nation's founders would cringe at republicans, “the right”
and us right
angles to standard politics
libertarians for doing is pretty much completely the opposite of what
our nation's founders would actually do, because – with the exception of John Adams, who was ushered out of office after one term – they never once did
it when they were alive.
Were
our founders here today, we would be endlessly
bickering about the science behind everything and even whether
science was relevant in a free country built solely upon political freedom;
about the efficacy of masking; about the futility of preemptive
quarantining of healthy [or at least non-noticeably ill] individuals;
about the known relative risks borne by the disease among individuals
within specific demographics against the unknown risks of
experimental pseudo-vaccines rushed through clinical trials and
having zero long-term testing, and the like. Most importantly, those
who interfered with public squabbling – Mark Zuckerberg, Jack
Dorsey, and op-ed page editors take note – would be pilloried in
the public square at a minimum and tarred and feathered at the worst.
Such was our “framers'” dedication to the notion of each citizen
being equal to all others, irrespective of their opinions, right up
to the point when the “common good” was actually ascertained, and
enacted by the relevant legislative
body having the legitimate authority to enact it.
The relevant
legislative body having the legitimate authority would not have been
Congress...
Instead,
what we've seen is dictatorial fiat issued by executives at all
levels of government, having zero constitutionally-defined authority
to impose fiat at any of those levels, done as “emergencies” to
take effect days or sometimes weeks in the future [because
emergencies can be planned well in advance, naturally], mostly having
no defined notion of what constitutes an end to the “emergency”,
and all invariably – as we've found out – built on a foundation
of brand spanking new “science” that had never ever ever been
known before March of 2020. When legislatures have acted it has been
solely
to overturn the executive diktat not permitted in our constitutional
republic. These legislative limitations of disallowed executive
action is what constitutional pseudo-scholars like Julie Werner-Simon call
“anti-science” “lack of virtue”. To anyone who has actually studied the Constitution, it is called Checks and Balances among co-equal branches of government.
There
has never before been preemptive quarantining of healthy people in
the history of the human race; it defies science to do so. Masking
for general public prophylaxis has never been medically recommended
and in study after study after study consistently shows that it does
zero “common good”. Our treatment of children under this public
health fiasco has shown itself to be not simply a stupid, psychotic
anti-science damage to their physical and mental health, but
fuckingly so. And the official treatment of medical professionals who
offer alternative explanations or advice to any
aspect of the Party Line are virtuously silenced every bit as
effectively as being sent off to a Soviet gulag.
N.B.: I know
it's not the US and therefore not directly pertinent, but Australia
has actually created internment camps for Aussies unwilling to submit
to being pseudo-vaccine guinea pigs. Governments around the world,
including in our own nation, are beginning to repeat an eighty year
old request: Die
dokumenten, mein Herr.
More “virtue”, I'm sure.
As
a result, we in the scientifically innovative and medically advanced
United States are left to rely on outside medical research to learn
that just about every crazy conspiracy theory that us anti-science
luddites have concocted since early 2020 are true to within decimal
places of our original crackpottings. Japanese researchers are
telling us that if you're under thirty and in good health you are at
greater risk of death or debilitation from the pseudo-vaccine than
you are from the disease the pseudo-vaccine purports to, but doesn't,
prevent. Danish researchers are telling us that the common lefty
saw, “pandemic of the unvaccinated”, is grossly incorrect; the
unvaccinated have gotten the disease, gotten over it, and are mostly
immune from re-infection, while the vaccinated are not immune at all,
and they
are more likely to be spreading it around – primarily to those
who've been vaccinated multiple times.
The
vaccine works so well that Israel is on its fourth mandatory booster
in just over a year.
Medical
researchers all over the world, with one major holdout among US
government health agencies, are finally catching onto the twin facts
that the pseudo-vaccine is largely ineffective and that the fallback
rationalization of the compulsory vaccine pushers, “Well,
taking the vaccine means that it won't be as bad if you catch it”
is also very very wrong. The world's best bet for beating this is to
do – as Sweden, South Dakota and Florida have shown us – nothing
heroic, and let nature take its course. Acquired immunity through
survival of infection is the best way to beat it down. Just like –
and what are the odds of this? – science has shown us for thousands
of years.
We
are left having to watch foreign nations which don't have the
billions of dollars necessary to buy pseudo-vaccines from Western
pharmaceuticals using cheap therapeutic alternatives for off-label
purposes, and to great success. But we can't talk about it here,
because it's “misinformation”, according to Facebook and the
other Ministry of Truth apparatchik.
It
is now a foregone conclusion that this virus was manufactured by the
Wuhan Institute of Virology [just as us conspiracists claimed], and
used Fauci-grant money to do it [just as ditto]. The only unknown is
whether this was an inept leak, or a deliberate release. I'm still
going for the deliberate release, as its coincidental
timing to US sanctions and tariffs having severely crippling effect
on China's baling wire and bubblegum economy was just a bit too
coincidental. If China was going to go down the drain, they'd take
everyone else with them. And that's what's happening.
It's
only lefty op-ed “journalists” who still cling to scientifically
unsupportable claims that the virus which came out with a grab bag of
viral building blocks, HIV and the like, took a natural jump from
bats to pangolins to humans. It's only those same lefties who claim
that the money trail from Fauci's department at NIH to WIV was not
for research but for, I dunno, a massive take-out order of egg rolls
or something. Lefties are still the only ones who believe his “This
gain of function research isn't real
gain of function research, because I am Science and I say so”
bit.
No,
if the dudes who wrote our Constitution were alive today to apply
Hamilton's wisdom
to discern
to our instant circumstances they would be aghast at the lengths to
which a handful of individuals and government institutions have
hijacked the notion of “virtue” in a free country among free
people to contrive a “common good” that was neither common nor
good but entirely predicated on consolidating power among those whom
our founders' virtues of common good were specifically
designed to keep power away from.
There
may indeed be an argument to be made for a “common good” “virtue”
for collective action regarding public health. But it has not been
made [to my knowledge] by any leftist and specifically not Julie
Werner-Simon. It would likely not be imposed [in our nation] by
government action and certainly
not
by dictatorial edict. And it would only come after having a long,
boring, tedious public wrangle over every conceivable detail without
the forcible silencing or censure of the quibbledicks who contradict
the orthodoxy of centralized power.
Advice
to Julie: the next time you cite the Constitution as authority for your
poisonous politics, please spend a few minutes actually reading it
first.