Old theories on Dems validated

This requires some contextual background. Conservatives have tossed out various psycho-theories about the left and what drives Democrats. I have considered them dysfunctionally deficient, making reasoning impossible. You could have a formal debate with numbers and statistics but it would mean nothing. They can ignore inconvenient facts as easily as they ignore the results. It does frustrate people.

Take a major issue as an example. The wall and border security, not even going into the entire problems. If you sat down to reason or convince Democrats, it wouldn’t work. So if the left has such aversion to a wall, numbers or facts don’t work. What is it, you might wonder why? If it were economics, you could make that argument. But you would be wasting your time and sincere efforts.

That is because it is philosophical to them. They are philosophically opposed, no matter what the facts or what you say. They will invent excuses, just make things up, call you names, or twist whatever you say. You see how vehemently they are opposed. It also includes ideology and emotion. Don’t expect them to care about the consequences of not building a wall either. They don’t care. They can’t be forced to care about something they have already made up their mind is not important.

They only care about other things much more: like sanctuary cities, illegal immigrants, amnesty, stopping ICE from doing its job, protecting illegals. Almost anything else. They’ll give you the state’s rights argument. They don’t care about that. They’ve been fighting against state’s rights for years and opposing the will of the people.

So how else can one explain it? What is behind it. If it is a mental deficiency, what is it? Well, I found something interesting to help explain it. Just consider the source.

Sooner or later you will come across this story, if you haven’t already — because it is being shoveled out especially by media. I took the time to read it. I will link the article, not as a personal endorsement, but this was my takeaway nugget from it.

“I wanted to know why the Lib Dems sucked at winning elections when they used to run the country up to the end of the 19th century,” Wylie explains. “And I began looking at consumer and demographic data to see what united Lib Dem voters, because apart from bits of Wales and the Shetlands it’s weird, disparate regions. And what I found is there were no strong correlations. There was no signal in the data.

“And then I came across a paper about how personality traits could be a precursor to political behaviour, and it suddenly made sense. Liberalism is correlated with high openness and low conscientiousness, and when you think of Lib Dems they’re absent-minded professors and hippies. They’re the early adopters… they’re highly open to new ideas. And it just clicked all of a sudden.”

Now some of this data is from varied places. But it still would apply across borders.

This high openness, to belief and apparently progressive ideas would help explain it. Couple that with low conscientiousness and you have a volatile cocktail. A vehicle. I knew they were conscience-challenged but there it is. Do you think they would care about turning on a dime, contradicting themselves or hypocrisy? No, all that only matters if they care.

That’s why they beat conservatives over the head about double standards of hypocrisy. That works. To the left there are no double standards, only the now standard. Past is not prologue, it becomes irrelevant. All the matters is the immediate situation and need — whatever it takes.

Now that makes sense too, because they don’t care about the future, really, or the consequences of what they do. And it’s also why they continually apply the same failing policies. So there is a plausible, real validation that is measurable.

Explains a lot about Obama, Clintons and the DNC. So if you have people open to a radical agenda and ideas, with low conscientious objections, you have a pretty influential bunch that can be led (molded). Throw some white guilt on that bonfire. And all this, linked to the established plantation and identity politics, is an incorrigible force with only one uniting thing, ideology and control. Add in the anti-God agenda and what do you expect?

Right Ring | Bullright

Hawking trolling the universe

I’ll say right up front I don’t expect this to make too much sense. It’s only a few thoughts from….well, somewhere.

All week I was thinking of something I read in a talk Stephen Hawking gave. So the subject was the need to explore space because we can probably only survive another thousand years on earth. Not the thing that stood out, but this was his basic stance:

“We must continue to go into space for humanity,” Hawking said. “We won’t survive another 1,000 years without escaping our fragile planet.”

Then came what stuck in my craw, or wherever. A week later it is still stuck.

If you understand how the universe operates, you control it in a way.

Okay, no one likes to disagree with Hawking. Nobody likes to embarrass themselves. But come on…really, “we can control it”? I must have missed the theory that explains why X is Z or something.

I don’t know which part of his statement bothers me more. The first claims if we know how it operates, assuming we can, and the second is control it “in a way”. What way was he referring to? If we can understand it, would not mean we’ll make the right decisions. Should that be our objective, to control it?

There are so many variables there that I should just leave it alone. His statement stands for itself. I had lots of fun thinking it over for a week. It doesn’t sound any better now.

‘To understand the universe at the deepest level, we have to understand why is there something rather than nothing,’ Hawking said.

How many years have we been busy understanding how the earth operates and can we control that yet? As Dr Phil says…”and how’s that working out for you?”

And they like to call us conspiracy theorists.

Just a few years ago he declared philosophy dead because it has not kept up with modern science, particularly physics. So moving right along, aren’t we?

Mob Mentality


There have been discussions and studies on mob mentality. Christians are familiar with it as well as anyone. Its been used as a defense and excuse, and its been used as blame. There must be lots of studies about it.

It occurred to me that what we see a lot of today is mob mentality. (or as much as any other time) Most conservatives understand we have a republic not a pure democracy or mobacracy. Mob rule is not difficult to spot, we know it when we see it. How many evils were committed by the mob mentality? But it is not an excuse that should leave the individual off the hook like it is sometimes used. After all, conservatives strive to recognize the individual.

My issue here is not about the definition. Its about the effects. We just saw how a gang rape in India touched off a firestorm of protestors that came out to denounce those acts. I was shocked to see details where a witness saw long strands of intestines being pulled from the woman, who did not survive. If that is not disturbing I don’t know what is. What would cause people to commit such things? Mob mentality? But history is filled of these kind of things. They make TV shows about them. I’m not saying it was the mob mentality that caused all of them because individuals do disturbing things as well.

We tell children “if everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you too?” Kids can understand those examples. We don’t want them to participate and blindly follow others in acts of evil. We warn them about peer pressure. We tell them just say no. Sadly, its nothing new; it’s part of humanity.

Christians understand mob mentality in the crucifixion. It was the exceptions and examples like Mary we remember. And other individuals who stood up to buck the trends in the New Testament. There was Stephen the martyr. Roman soldiers mocked Jesus. And Jesus tells the thief he would be with him in paradise. We see over and over the damage mob mentality can do. Look at Pilate.

We’re continually reminded of gang and mafia related violence and killings. They can rule neighborhoods.

We’ve seen stories of out of control mobs in stores at sales, where people were trampled. Police have crowd control tactics. Rodney king was a famous as a victim. Crowds form protests and they boycott businesses.

Media have their own wolf pack mob mentality. They can get in the way of the story they are covering.

I’m not just trying to list all the various forms, and you probably know where this is heading.

We see the mob mentality encouraged. Unions and organizations try to use mobs by organizing people. We have a president who comes from that background.

Of course, you don’t have to think too hard to wonder how mob mentality applies in our government and in Congress. I’ve been thinking how it is the same thing. The effects are all around. We see the pork they pass in bills and the idea is everyone does it. They follow the mob. It’s part of the process. There’s the “I got mine” philosophy.

Hey kids, if everyone is doing it, so guess who just HAS to do the same thing as everyone else? Our honorable reps. Don’t try that at home. We may not have a mobacracy but they do have the mob mentality working there.

So I started to wonder how much the mob mentality really plays into our process? It’s the same damaging philosophy. We hear about polls every day. The “big momentum”. The election process starts way early, mobs form. No different with legislators and the legislative process.

Years ago, we saw John McCain and his gang of 14. We see legislators hold government hostage to preserve their power and agenda. The mob mentality is the culprit, and they act as if its the solution. Politicians will lecture us against mobacracy and mob rule, while they use it as a vice. The founders warned about it in Federalist 10.

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.”

But instead of working toward the cure, we have a part of our political process who plays the game of encouraging and using factions for its political benefit – like a tool. Another side wants to encourage or support the individual in general. And some see themselves only in the group identity and demographics. How do we control and combat the effects of the extreme identity politics the left has created?

The point is the Right believes in idividuals and appeals to them. But you know how the Dems always tell us about diversity? Yea and the party of quotas and supposedly of minorities has a mob problem. They don’t see Latinos or minorities as individuals but as a group. All part of their extreme identity politics Democrats engage in. They pander and talk to them the same way, by the group. One set of policies for illegal immigrants, one set for blacks, one set for gays, one set for unions, and for women. And they use class warfare in economics.

They cater to the group or mob, it is not about the individual. A person just fits into his/her identity group. They relate to the person through one’s identity group. In the Obama campaign, his website had lists for various groups. You could search your group to see the policies related to being a Latino, a gay, a woman, et al, or even Christian.They were proud of the way they organized it. That is if you want to be known by that. Imagine having lists of Indians, Arabs, Asians, Mexicans Christians, blacks, Buddhists. It seems like it would be insulting. The same people attacked Romney for having binders of women for jobs.

Its mob politics – identity or group politics. No wonder it seems like mob rule. In the capitol they have their caucuses by identity group, the black caucus and the Hispanic caucus. They probably would have a communist caucus but they seem to overlap other groups. You caucus with your identity group — except if you are a black conservative. Then they lecture the Right on quotas and identity politics. Obama got over 90% of the black vote, what’s going on there? Yet the left will complain about large, powerful groups of conservatives. And they’ll talk about Republican “dog whistles”.