I've been thinking of doing this post (or a variant) for some time...
Today is the California primary, where it actually appears Republicans may make SOME inroads into the state, largely on the fact the cities are out of control.
I read, as a function of my enemies, libertarian economist Karl Denninger's The Market Ticker, largely so I know what some people may be planning for my death and the death of about the leftward 30-60% of this country.
Why do I say this?
Denninger says the entire leveraged expansion of this country of the last 40 years must be reversed.
That must, if we are to believe your "mathematics doesn't lie", Karl, the 30% increase of population which occurred in the same time frame must go with it.
And then, on top of that, you'd have to implement a "replacement theory" of your own: Replacing another 30% of the population over the next 20-25 years with good, White Christian MEN. (And make no mistake: Repealing and revoking Roe v. Wade is about creating WHITE MEN... The only people who have an ounce of rights in Conservative America.)
(And if you don't believe that, I could point you to a statement made today by the Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina: "We were born to be led by men." That, rubber hitting the road, we didn't send "Davida", we sent David.)
But the centerpiece of this post is to (a) rebuke of his current three-line signature on his posts and (b) tell the Conservatives of this country about what they would have to do at this point -- hint: it's a military-takeover action, under the color of the Second Amendment as the courts have misapplied.
Here's Denninger's sig:
Civil Society requires 99%+ consent.
Stop consenting and it is forced to stop. Always.
No violence required.
All three statements are flatly false.
The first: Civil society requires 99%+ consent.
I get where he acquires this belief: The concept that only about 3% or so of the fighting-age men of the 1770's actually fought in the Revolutionary War.
What he does not get is the concept that freedom is a terrorist act, and the Constitution (especially to Conservatives and Libertarians and DOUBLY SO post-Civil War) a terrorist document.
There's a very real difference between consent and the fact you don't have the right not to consent, so it doesn't matter whether you consent or not.
And that. frankly, is where most Americans are right now.
Let me put it this way to make it simple for you: If you got arrested tonight, how long would it be before you lost everything (your job, your home, your belongings, perhaps even your wife and family) -- whether or not you were guilty of the offense?
You probably lose the job the moment the arrest hits your boss. You lose the home when you can't make the next payment (which, for many, isn't even more than the next month or two), the belongings as an immediate corollary. And, depending on the nature of the relationship and the charge, you may lose your wife and family anywhere from immediately to the point at which it is no longer tenable.
And, again, that does not require guilt. It only requires the arrest.
It's one of the main reasons that most people, in this country, cannot even afford to be ARRESTED. So "consent" is not even a relevant term here. You don't have the right not to.
Second statement: Stop consenting and it is forced to stop. Always.
Try "NEVER", Karl.
If you stop consenting, then one of three things will happen to you. You will be either be scorned, exiled, or eliminated -- the level of each depending on what that which you are no longer (or never were) in consent to.
It will continue. And I would assert the entire economic makeup of this country is a splendid counterexample to this theory. You would think that more than 1% of this country has not consented to the present circumstances, from the American Right.
So why do we continue as we are? Because your theory is wrong.
Third statement: No violence required.
To state this is laughable is an insult to laughability.
The first problem with this statement is the presence of a statistically significant portion of the population whose EXISTENCE is violence -- I happen to be in that group.
The second problem is the falsity of the first two statements, and that it has nothing to do with "consent" at all.
Just as it is the other direction (and why the Right wants to go back to the 10th Amendment and chip away and eventually revoke the 14th), IT IS ALL ENFORCEMENT.
All of it. Every last bit of it.
The fact that many aggrieved demographics are allowed to exist at all in this country and weren't exterminated in the style of the Indians with Manifest Destiny is ENFORCEMENT, IMPOSITION of their "rights" on the majority who would otherwise see them gone.
The Constitution does not grant rights -- it IMPOSES them, against the majority. And the 14th Amendment is the centerpiece for this situation.
This is why you are seeing efforts to chip away at those rights, because of the fact that the Conservatives understand the very EXISTENCE of certain people and demographics not only are acts of violence upon "their America", but also acts of terrorism against their belief system.
Which gets to the current situation in cities like LA and San Francisco.
The District Attorney of San Francisco is about to be recalled tonight, as part of a Republican-led effort to force "tough on crime" back on San Francisco.
I tell you this without hesitation and with the very real possibility I may be homeless on those same streets by the end of the summer:
The only way you are getting "tough on crime" in San Francisco is militia-enforced martial law. You will literally have to give the order to shoot to kill the crime elements of that city.
I know of which I speak. I spent a little over nine years on the streets of San Francisco -- and that was actually a nine-year period in which the city had far less of a problem than it does now.
The first issue you have is mental health, but I started seeing what is going on today on an increasing basis in the final weeks and months before I got housed in another part of the country: Violence because there's nothing to lose.
The vast bulk of this is either gang activity (meaning they, to be part of the gang, commit the crime), their only approximation of a "job" (the theft rings running around), and/or the fact that, for tens of thousands in the 49 square miles, jail and prison are stark improvements on their lives as they stand.
How, short of basically elimination, are you going to deal with that?
And that goes double in LA, a city in which the gangs have material control.
If you go back to the beginning of the coronavirus stuff on this blog and look at my discussion of
All-Stop Conditions, we are far closer than I think anyone should be comfortable with -- and it may go down this summer.
The mass shootings all over the country are an indication of this.
Another indication is that seven street gangs effectively now have material control of LA with some of the follow-home robberies which are taking place.
You cannot continue a "law and order" possibility without not just saying you'll shoot them, but carrying it out.
Because how many of them are effective zombies in the first place at this point?
Karl, shoot or shut the fuck up. (Your) Math lies, and I'm living proof.
No comments:
Post a Comment