When it is in the interest of the state, the state will create more.
29 thoughts on “Chaos”
“What do Covid lockdowns, energy re-dependence in “pursuit” of the chimera of “green” energy, BLM/Antifa/OFA “mostly peaceful” protests, and decriminalization of low-level crimes have in common with open borders, reversing Trump’s Middle East peace advances, and 70 years of wars we refuse to win all have in common?
Chaos. Why? Because when chaos serves the State, the State will encourage chaos.What do Covid lockdowns, energy re-dependence in “pursuit” of the chimera of “green” energy, BLM/Antifa/OFA “mostly peaceful” protests, and decriminalization of low-level crimes have in common with open borders, reversing Trump’s Middle East peace advances, and 70 years of wars we refuse to win all have in common?
Chaos. Why? Because when chaos serves the State, the State will encourage chaos.”
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity and incompetence; I really do think they are that stupid. They are not evil geniuses more like bumbling ideology corrupted fools (Warren, Saunders, Pelosi, Harris, Schumer, most of the main stream media).
“Warren, Saunders, Pelosi, Harris, Schumer, most of the main stream media”
Puppets…..
Nah bro, it’s malice.
Environmental cultists might believe that we are living in an apocalypse, some surely do, but the policies are designed to punish. High gas an energy prices are essential because rhetorical persuasion isn’t effective.
The mass racial violence is organized by the Democrat party because the violence is what they use to justify their policies and it serves secondary goals like control of the populace.
With all of their schemes, the downsides and negativity is intended in 90% of the outcomes. It only comes as a surprise to les gullibles.
They aren’t dumb, their are conniving vicious reprehensible human beings who are achieving their goals. Of course it comes down to the question of are you in on the joke or are you the joke? Bezmenov calls them useful idiots.
Was it Hugo Chávez and his associates master plan to run the Venezuelan economy into the ground? They meant to do that? No. Intellectual mediocrity (at best) combined with rigid fidelity to their ideology (Socialism/Communism) caused it. They would never believe that what they did caused the problem. Like here, the spike in crime had nothing to do with mass releasing of felons, not charging people for a host of crimes, defunding the police etc; we just don’t have enough gun control that’s all.
“What do those who work in government want? More government. What’s the most government? A police state.”
This is why certain people are being kicked/driven out of law enforcement, the legal system, and the military. Don’t worry, when personnel have been replaced and who is a criminal redefined, law enforcement and the legal system will not lack for funds or support.
“Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”
Porter Clark’s Law I believe.
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity,”
Hanlon’s Razor includes the moral premise that you should “assume good faith” is at work, even though damage has occurred, whenever possible. Alexandre Dumas is reputed to have once said, “I prefer rogues to imbeciles, because rogues sometimes rest.” He was implying that idiots actually do more damage than miscreants, because they are incapable of doing anything constructive. Therefore, he seems to be implying, when witnessing destruction, one should first assume that incompetence is to blame, and then investigate malice.
This boils down neatly to the BritE expression “Cock-up before conspiracy”, describing where to start in trying to determine the reason for some mishap. The expression is attributed to Bernard Ingham, press secretary to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher from 1979 until her resignation in 1990.
The rule that you quoted actually reads, “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”, and is known as Grey’s Law, though it seems recent in origin and there seems to be no record of a person named Grey saying it, nor any verifiable reference linking it to a person named Grey.”
Malice and good faith aren’t mutually exclusive. Democrats think their cause is so righteous that committing any number of evil acts to achieve their goals is a good tradeoff.
Is Chicago Mayor Laurie Lightfoot for instance a master criminal following an (evil) master plan or a world class idiot?
Remember that clip where they claimed for the amount of money Michael Bloomberg spent on his Presidential campaign he could have made all of us millionaires?
The main stream media (MSNBC) picked up this tweet and reiterated it; these folks are evil geniuses? My arse.
“Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. The U.S. population is 327 million. He could have given each American $1 million and still have money left over, I feel like a $1 million check would be life-changing for people. Yet he wasted it all on ads and STILL LOST,” Williams said in quoting a tweet by journalist Mekita Rivas.”
When Jen Psaki says it is Republicans calling to “defund the police”, yet can’t name one after being given a list of Democrats that used the exact words; I could call it stupid, but an obvious lie suggests malice.
It’s hard to not attribute malice and give good faith to people, who have imprisoned protesters in isolation for months without bail or trial. Protesters that are called insurrectionist despite not meeting the government defined standard for that crime. The event of their arrest is called a terrible attack against our country, yet only one defender was ever named. The defender was named under the guise that he was killed by the protesters at the Capitol despite official autopsy showing he died of natural causes at the hospital after talking to his family and not mentioning being beaten by a fire extinguisher. If such behavior isn’t malice, I worry what it would take to be malice.
If they are truly stupid, what does it say about us that we go along with it? We shouldn’t go along with malice, but I understand a fear of dealing with malice from a government that has made clear a willingness to use force against it citizens.
The most serious offenders will be prosecuted for conspiracy to parade.
“When Jen Psaki says it is Republicans calling to “defund the police”, yet can’t name one after being given a list of Democrats that used the exact words; I could call it stupid, but an obvious lie suggests malice.”
She (Psaki) seems to be claiming that lack of support for certain proposed initiatives on the part of the Republicans is in effect like saying “defunding the police” without technically saying it. She is parsing her words of course like most press secretaries. “Actions (not supporting said initiatives) speak louder than words” is her claim.
“Jen Psaki And Reporter Clash Over Her Comments That Republicans Are Defunding The Police”
This is true with the caveat that Democrat’s actions have also been to defund the police. The doublespeak that Psaki engages in shows there isn’t any good faith taking place on the side of the Democrats.
She is parsing her words of course like most press secretaries. “Actions (not supporting said initiatives) speak louder than words” is her claim.
Indeed, her actions are speaking pretty loudly, and her action is to ignore where the phrase “defund the police” came from, why it exists in our lexicon today, and the effect it has had in the cities in which it has been implemented. Cities that are run by Democrats who not only proclaimed “defund the police” but acted up on it. No Republican has made the statement nor acted in such a manner in any fashion at any place. YouTube video of Jen Psaki continuing to lie does not provide positive evidence to negative hypothetical I just provided.
Yet you defend this by noting she is parsing words for political purpose. As Wodun points out, that is a sign of not acting in good faith. You are welcome to continue to stupidly defend her statement, but note that your continuance may start to appear more than just stupidity. If you believe what you wrote, show us the action where a Republican defunded the police. I warn you now, noting opposition to an omnibus bill as an example will be considered a willful deflection with intent to spin.
“Yet you defend this by noting she is parsing words for political purpose. As Wodun points out, that is a sign of not acting in good faith. You are welcome to continue to stupidly defend her statement, but note that your continuance may start to appear more than just stupidity. If you believe what you wrote, show us the action where a Republican defunded the police. I warn you now, noting opposition to an omnibus bill as an example will be considered a willful deflection with intent to spin.”
Didn’t know that I was “defending” her Leland, just attempting to analyze her response. I don’t agree with her at all. She was trying to cover for her party/boss; of course I/we know that defund the police started with the lefty democrats. Not sure how you think my repeatedly describing them (dems/lefties/main stream media) as incompetent bumbling fools rather than evil is exactly “defending” them. I thought the point I was trying to make is that incompetence/ineptitude are far more pervasive than evil is and therefore a much greater existentialist threat to our Republic than malice is. More companies, countries, empires, etc., throughout history have fallen due to foolish mistakes, asinine rationalizations, inept analysis, etc. than evil master plans working out the way they were intended to. Do you disagree in general with this supposition or merely to it applying to the particular example of our present circumstances?
Your defending her intended actions as stupidity. You choose the word “analyze her response” when her response is clear without analyzing. Your analysis is intended to provide context for her comments, when she neither asked you to be her spokesperson and she is indeed a spokesperson for the administration.
Your general supposition is pointless. It is not hard to point to strategic mistakes made by Hitler and claim the downfall of Germany in 1945 was due to his stupidity. However, I think the downfall of Germany in the early 1940’s began with malice a forefoot.
Most of us realize the stupidity of cries for “defund the police” to prevent premature death by cops when minorities are disproportionally killed by other citizens than by cops and there is a similar remedy for judging both murderous cops and citizens that fails to work without law enforcement. The fact that the idea is stupid doesn’t at all exempt malice from existing. It would be purely stupid if the arguments were made from complete ignorance. But that brings me back to Jen Psaki.
“When Jen Psaki says it is Republicans calling to “defund the police”, yet can’t name one after being given a list of Democrats that used the exact words; I could call it stupid, but an obvious lie suggests malice.”
Jen was no longer ignorant when she was provided a list of Democrats that used the phrase, yet she could not name one Republican. It is not ignorance to say “Republicans are calling to defund the police”, because the notion suggests knowledge on Jen’s part. It is indeed stupid to suggest knowledge when only ignorance exists, but Jen Psaki made these comments twice.
Since you seem keen to idioms to explain things; then try this: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I gave Jen two chances. I gave you two chances. The first time, I accepted the chance of good faith gone wrong. The second time suggests not a chance but a bias.
You can believe their is more stupidity than malice in the world. You can think that matters in this discussion. I’m debating that it matters, and I think you are wrong. Jen Psaki speaks for an administration that supports removing law enforcement to protect the citizenry, supports adding national guard units to protect the government, and imprisons without trial political dissidents. If those acts are out of stupidity; why would you go along with them? If you disagree that those events are ongoing; then I guess I know a bit more about you.
“You can believe their is more stupidity than malice in the world. You can think that matters in this discussion. I’m debating that it matters, and I think you are wrong. Jen Psaki speaks for an administration that supports removing law enforcement to protect the citizenry, supports adding national guard units to protect the government, and imprisons without trial political dissidents. If those acts are out of stupidity; why would you go along with them?”
Defend them? “Go along with them” ?! Neither. I don’t agree with them defend them or go along with them. I simply believe that most of them are incompetent idiots; that’s not an endorsement for going along with them more like an endorsement for shit-canning the lot of them. The examples of their ineptitude like the ones I posted earlier are the reason I feel that way. Was Hugo Chavez an evil genius setting out to destroy Venezuela for the greater propagation of global communism? Or was he a fanatical intellectually limited ideologue (like Castro) surrounded by equally inept party “intellectuals” who to his dying breath likely admitted no fault for the debacle?
Was Hugo Chavez an evil genius setting out to destroy Venezuela for the greater propagation of global communism?
“However, he miscalculated while he panicked during the mass protest and march of April 11, 2002. His order to members of his civilian armed militias to fire on unarmed demonstrators disgusted the officer corps that he had handpicked to run the Army. His own generals deposed him.
These same generals, though, quickly brought him back only three days later when the opposition’s chosen leader bungled in every imaginable way.”
And:
“By the time of his death, Chávez had achieved most of what he had set out to do. A mediocre opposition, totally lacking a strategic vision, posed no problems. Moreover, as Chávez himself boasted several times, he had “infiltrated them to the core.”
“Brilliant strategist”; mostly enabled by the incompetence of his opposition. From another source about Chavez:
Venezuela – The Bitter Legacy of Hugo Chávez
“People around the globe are witnessing the disintegration of an oil-rich country. Venezuela had the world’s fourth-highest per-capita income in 1950. Now it’s being ripped apart by record levels of poverty.”
“More than 90% of Venezuelans struggle to subsist. How did Hugo Chávez drive this once affluent, democratic country to ruin? This documentary goes in search of answers to that question.”
Well if wrecking the economy of Venezuela was his master plan Leland than I stand corrected; he was a freaking genius.
I think you guys kinda agree on the Psaki stuff.
It is a mistake to think that what you want is what other people want. Did Chavez want a good economy? Good by whose standards? It could very well be that he was very successful at achieving his goals and that those goals are different than what you think his goals were.
All people are capable of learning, even the various flavors of Marxists. This is how the Chinese seek to balance economic concerns with their propensity for genocide and persecuting dissidents. The welfare of the populace isn’t their goal, retaining power and enriching party bosses are. The welfare of the populace is only important in that it can become a threat to their power and this is true for a population that has too much freedom and prosperity, not just angry at their miserable lives. This is why the Democrats love China.
The problem with Marxists isn’t that they are inept but rather the motivating ideology. Horror is baked in.
His order to members of his civilian armed militias to fire on unarmed demonstrators
Malice.
“His order to members of his civilian armed militias to fire on unarmed demonstrators
Malice.”
Full quote:
“However, he miscalculated while he panicked during the mass protest and march of April 11, 2002. His order to members of his civilian armed militias to fire on unarmed demonstrators disgusted the officer corps that he had handpicked to run the Army. His own generals deposed him.”
And or gross/incompetence; after all malice and incompetence are not mutually exclusive. You can be both evil and a fu&*kup. Pretty sure it wasn’t his brilliant evil master plan to be deposed by his own handpicked “loyal” generals; he only survived because the opposition was more inept than he was. And the stupidity of said generals; after all once you deposed your dictator boss pretty obtuse to allow him back in. Better to take your chances with someone else or maybe one the generals themselves taking over. Likely even that idiot Chavez’sfirst order of business after being reinstated was to arrest/convict/jail or execute said treasonous generals.
It looks like these Marxist countries just never had the right leader. The problem is always the ineptness of the leader rather than their ideology and system of governance. All they need is the right person and everything will be different the next time it’s tried.
So rare to see a trope in the wild.
“It looks like these Marxist countries just never had the right leader. The problem is always the ineptness of the leader rather than their ideology and system of governance.”
Or both maybe Wodun; again not mutually exclusive. Communism/socialism are incompetent ideologies and systems of governance advocated by incompetent/inept (sometimes evil) people who lack the ability to understand how unworkable the ideologies are in reality. For instance “defund the police” is an incompetent idea, regardless of who tried to implement it to make it work. Of course if one is an idiot to start with you are more likely to be attracted to nitwit ideas.
President lord help us Bernie Sanders would have been incompetent to implement just about any kind of economic plan. The fact that he is a hard-core lefty socialist(communist) re-distribute the wealth rich people can pay for everything and not even miss it just ask Brian Williams, is not necessarily coincidental to his ineptness. They correlate nicely with each other not at all mutually exclusive.
It’s time for the Dems to use my favorite charge against their opponents: suspicion of intent to conspire.
Their favorite charge used to be “insensitivity to the appearance of impropriety.” Actual impropriety is okay, as long as you are sensitive to appearances.
Giving handies to each other in front of kids at a Pride parade is ok but don’t you dare use any negative adjectives about their politicians like, jerk, crooked, corrupt, or fake news. Those kind of insults are over the line, alert the NSA!
“What do Covid lockdowns, energy re-dependence in “pursuit” of the chimera of “green” energy, BLM/Antifa/OFA “mostly peaceful” protests, and decriminalization of low-level crimes have in common with open borders, reversing Trump’s Middle East peace advances, and 70 years of wars we refuse to win all have in common?
Chaos. Why? Because when chaos serves the State, the State will encourage chaos.What do Covid lockdowns, energy re-dependence in “pursuit” of the chimera of “green” energy, BLM/Antifa/OFA “mostly peaceful” protests, and decriminalization of low-level crimes have in common with open borders, reversing Trump’s Middle East peace advances, and 70 years of wars we refuse to win all have in common?
Chaos. Why? Because when chaos serves the State, the State will encourage chaos.”
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity and incompetence; I really do think they are that stupid. They are not evil geniuses more like bumbling ideology corrupted fools (Warren, Saunders, Pelosi, Harris, Schumer, most of the main stream media).
“Warren, Saunders, Pelosi, Harris, Schumer, most of the main stream media”
Puppets…..
Nah bro, it’s malice.
Environmental cultists might believe that we are living in an apocalypse, some surely do, but the policies are designed to punish. High gas an energy prices are essential because rhetorical persuasion isn’t effective.
The mass racial violence is organized by the Democrat party because the violence is what they use to justify their policies and it serves secondary goals like control of the populace.
With all of their schemes, the downsides and negativity is intended in 90% of the outcomes. It only comes as a surprise to les gullibles.
They aren’t dumb, their are conniving vicious reprehensible human beings who are achieving their goals. Of course it comes down to the question of are you in on the joke or are you the joke? Bezmenov calls them useful idiots.
Was it Hugo Chávez and his associates master plan to run the Venezuelan economy into the ground? They meant to do that? No. Intellectual mediocrity (at best) combined with rigid fidelity to their ideology (Socialism/Communism) caused it. They would never believe that what they did caused the problem. Like here, the spike in crime had nothing to do with mass releasing of felons, not charging people for a host of crimes, defunding the police etc; we just don’t have enough gun control that’s all.
“What do those who work in government want? More government. What’s the most government? A police state.”
This is why certain people are being kicked/driven out of law enforcement, the legal system, and the military. Don’t worry, when personnel have been replaced and who is a criminal redefined, law enforcement and the legal system will not lack for funds or support.
“Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”
Porter Clark’s Law I believe.
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity,”
Hanlon’s Razor includes the moral premise that you should “assume good faith” is at work, even though damage has occurred, whenever possible. Alexandre Dumas is reputed to have once said, “I prefer rogues to imbeciles, because rogues sometimes rest.” He was implying that idiots actually do more damage than miscreants, because they are incapable of doing anything constructive. Therefore, he seems to be implying, when witnessing destruction, one should first assume that incompetence is to blame, and then investigate malice.
This boils down neatly to the BritE expression “Cock-up before conspiracy”, describing where to start in trying to determine the reason for some mishap. The expression is attributed to Bernard Ingham, press secretary to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher from 1979 until her resignation in 1990.
The rule that you quoted actually reads, “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”, and is known as Grey’s Law, though it seems recent in origin and there seems to be no record of a person named Grey saying it, nor any verifiable reference linking it to a person named Grey.”
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/350667/perhaps-a-hanlons-razor-but-what-does-it-mean
Malice and good faith aren’t mutually exclusive. Democrats think their cause is so righteous that committing any number of evil acts to achieve their goals is a good tradeoff.
Is Chicago Mayor Laurie Lightfoot for instance a master criminal following an (evil) master plan or a world class idiot?
Remember that clip where they claimed for the amount of money Michael Bloomberg spent on his Presidential campaign he could have made all of us millionaires?
“This is the saddest clip in TV history.”
https://twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1235843592251301888
The main stream media (MSNBC) picked up this tweet and reiterated it; these folks are evil geniuses? My arse.
“Bloomberg spent $500 million on ads. The U.S. population is 327 million. He could have given each American $1 million and still have money left over, I feel like a $1 million check would be life-changing for people. Yet he wasted it all on ads and STILL LOST,” Williams said in quoting a tweet by journalist Mekita Rivas.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/486288-brian-williams-nyts-gay-roasted-over-math-flub-saddest-clip-in-tv-history
When Jen Psaki says it is Republicans calling to “defund the police”, yet can’t name one after being given a list of Democrats that used the exact words; I could call it stupid, but an obvious lie suggests malice.
It’s hard to not attribute malice and give good faith to people, who have imprisoned protesters in isolation for months without bail or trial. Protesters that are called insurrectionist despite not meeting the government defined standard for that crime. The event of their arrest is called a terrible attack against our country, yet only one defender was ever named. The defender was named under the guise that he was killed by the protesters at the Capitol despite official autopsy showing he died of natural causes at the hospital after talking to his family and not mentioning being beaten by a fire extinguisher. If such behavior isn’t malice, I worry what it would take to be malice.
If they are truly stupid, what does it say about us that we go along with it? We shouldn’t go along with malice, but I understand a fear of dealing with malice from a government that has made clear a willingness to use force against it citizens.
The most serious offenders will be prosecuted for conspiracy to parade.
“When Jen Psaki says it is Republicans calling to “defund the police”, yet can’t name one after being given a list of Democrats that used the exact words; I could call it stupid, but an obvious lie suggests malice.”
She (Psaki) seems to be claiming that lack of support for certain proposed initiatives on the part of the Republicans is in effect like saying “defunding the police” without technically saying it. She is parsing her words of course like most press secretaries. “Actions (not supporting said initiatives) speak louder than words” is her claim.
“Jen Psaki And Reporter Clash Over Her Comments That Republicans Are Defunding The Police”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCpO7ZGPUfQ
This is true with the caveat that Democrat’s actions have also been to defund the police. The doublespeak that Psaki engages in shows there isn’t any good faith taking place on the side of the Democrats.
She is parsing her words of course like most press secretaries. “Actions (not supporting said initiatives) speak louder than words” is her claim.
Indeed, her actions are speaking pretty loudly, and her action is to ignore where the phrase “defund the police” came from, why it exists in our lexicon today, and the effect it has had in the cities in which it has been implemented. Cities that are run by Democrats who not only proclaimed “defund the police” but acted up on it. No Republican has made the statement nor acted in such a manner in any fashion at any place. YouTube video of Jen Psaki continuing to lie does not provide positive evidence to negative hypothetical I just provided.
Yet you defend this by noting she is parsing words for political purpose. As Wodun points out, that is a sign of not acting in good faith. You are welcome to continue to stupidly defend her statement, but note that your continuance may start to appear more than just stupidity. If you believe what you wrote, show us the action where a Republican defunded the police. I warn you now, noting opposition to an omnibus bill as an example will be considered a willful deflection with intent to spin.
“Yet you defend this by noting she is parsing words for political purpose. As Wodun points out, that is a sign of not acting in good faith. You are welcome to continue to stupidly defend her statement, but note that your continuance may start to appear more than just stupidity. If you believe what you wrote, show us the action where a Republican defunded the police. I warn you now, noting opposition to an omnibus bill as an example will be considered a willful deflection with intent to spin.”
Didn’t know that I was “defending” her Leland, just attempting to analyze her response. I don’t agree with her at all. She was trying to cover for her party/boss; of course I/we know that defund the police started with the lefty democrats. Not sure how you think my repeatedly describing them (dems/lefties/main stream media) as incompetent bumbling fools rather than evil is exactly “defending” them. I thought the point I was trying to make is that incompetence/ineptitude are far more pervasive than evil is and therefore a much greater existentialist threat to our Republic than malice is. More companies, countries, empires, etc., throughout history have fallen due to foolish mistakes, asinine rationalizations, inept analysis, etc. than evil master plans working out the way they were intended to. Do you disagree in general with this supposition or merely to it applying to the particular example of our present circumstances?
Your defending her intended actions as stupidity. You choose the word “analyze her response” when her response is clear without analyzing. Your analysis is intended to provide context for her comments, when she neither asked you to be her spokesperson and she is indeed a spokesperson for the administration.
Your general supposition is pointless. It is not hard to point to strategic mistakes made by Hitler and claim the downfall of Germany in 1945 was due to his stupidity. However, I think the downfall of Germany in the early 1940’s began with malice a forefoot.
Most of us realize the stupidity of cries for “defund the police” to prevent premature death by cops when minorities are disproportionally killed by other citizens than by cops and there is a similar remedy for judging both murderous cops and citizens that fails to work without law enforcement. The fact that the idea is stupid doesn’t at all exempt malice from existing. It would be purely stupid if the arguments were made from complete ignorance. But that brings me back to Jen Psaki.
“When Jen Psaki says it is Republicans calling to “defund the police”, yet can’t name one after being given a list of Democrats that used the exact words; I could call it stupid, but an obvious lie suggests malice.”
Jen was no longer ignorant when she was provided a list of Democrats that used the phrase, yet she could not name one Republican. It is not ignorance to say “Republicans are calling to defund the police”, because the notion suggests knowledge on Jen’s part. It is indeed stupid to suggest knowledge when only ignorance exists, but Jen Psaki made these comments twice.
Since you seem keen to idioms to explain things; then try this: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I gave Jen two chances. I gave you two chances. The first time, I accepted the chance of good faith gone wrong. The second time suggests not a chance but a bias.
You can believe their is more stupidity than malice in the world. You can think that matters in this discussion. I’m debating that it matters, and I think you are wrong. Jen Psaki speaks for an administration that supports removing law enforcement to protect the citizenry, supports adding national guard units to protect the government, and imprisons without trial political dissidents. If those acts are out of stupidity; why would you go along with them? If you disagree that those events are ongoing; then I guess I know a bit more about you.
“You can believe their is more stupidity than malice in the world. You can think that matters in this discussion. I’m debating that it matters, and I think you are wrong. Jen Psaki speaks for an administration that supports removing law enforcement to protect the citizenry, supports adding national guard units to protect the government, and imprisons without trial political dissidents. If those acts are out of stupidity; why would you go along with them?”
Defend them? “Go along with them” ?! Neither. I don’t agree with them defend them or go along with them. I simply believe that most of them are incompetent idiots; that’s not an endorsement for going along with them more like an endorsement for shit-canning the lot of them. The examples of their ineptitude like the ones I posted earlier are the reason I feel that way. Was Hugo Chavez an evil genius setting out to destroy Venezuela for the greater propagation of global communism? Or was he a fanatical intellectually limited ideologue (like Castro) surrounded by equally inept party “intellectuals” who to his dying breath likely admitted no fault for the debacle?
Was Hugo Chavez an evil genius setting out to destroy Venezuela for the greater propagation of global communism?
Yes
From your posted link Leland:
“However, he miscalculated while he panicked during the mass protest and march of April 11, 2002. His order to members of his civilian armed militias to fire on unarmed demonstrators disgusted the officer corps that he had handpicked to run the Army. His own generals deposed him.
These same generals, though, quickly brought him back only three days later when the opposition’s chosen leader bungled in every imaginable way.”
And:
“By the time of his death, Chávez had achieved most of what he had set out to do. A mediocre opposition, totally lacking a strategic vision, posed no problems. Moreover, as Chávez himself boasted several times, he had “infiltrated them to the core.”
“Brilliant strategist”; mostly enabled by the incompetence of his opposition. From another source about Chavez:
Venezuela – The Bitter Legacy of Hugo Chávez
“People around the globe are witnessing the disintegration of an oil-rich country. Venezuela had the world’s fourth-highest per-capita income in 1950. Now it’s being ripped apart by record levels of poverty.”
“More than 90% of Venezuelans struggle to subsist. How did Hugo Chávez drive this once affluent, democratic country to ruin? This documentary goes in search of answers to that question.”
https://www.dw.com/en/venezuela-the-bitter-legacy-of-hugo-ch%C3%A1vez/a-56375713
Well if wrecking the economy of Venezuela was his master plan Leland than I stand corrected; he was a freaking genius.
I think you guys kinda agree on the Psaki stuff.
It is a mistake to think that what you want is what other people want. Did Chavez want a good economy? Good by whose standards? It could very well be that he was very successful at achieving his goals and that those goals are different than what you think his goals were.
All people are capable of learning, even the various flavors of Marxists. This is how the Chinese seek to balance economic concerns with their propensity for genocide and persecuting dissidents. The welfare of the populace isn’t their goal, retaining power and enriching party bosses are. The welfare of the populace is only important in that it can become a threat to their power and this is true for a population that has too much freedom and prosperity, not just angry at their miserable lives. This is why the Democrats love China.
The problem with Marxists isn’t that they are inept but rather the motivating ideology. Horror is baked in.
As far as evil plans go, have you watched any Yuri Bezmenov? Usually, things don’t just happen. People make them happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9TviIuXPSE
His order to members of his civilian armed militias to fire on unarmed demonstrators
Malice.
“His order to members of his civilian armed militias to fire on unarmed demonstrators
Malice.”
Full quote:
“However, he miscalculated while he panicked during the mass protest and march of April 11, 2002. His order to members of his civilian armed militias to fire on unarmed demonstrators disgusted the officer corps that he had handpicked to run the Army. His own generals deposed him.”
And or gross/incompetence; after all malice and incompetence are not mutually exclusive. You can be both evil and a fu&*kup. Pretty sure it wasn’t his brilliant evil master plan to be deposed by his own handpicked “loyal” generals; he only survived because the opposition was more inept than he was. And the stupidity of said generals; after all once you deposed your dictator boss pretty obtuse to allow him back in. Better to take your chances with someone else or maybe one the generals themselves taking over. Likely even that idiot Chavez’sfirst order of business after being reinstated was to arrest/convict/jail or execute said treasonous generals.
It looks like these Marxist countries just never had the right leader. The problem is always the ineptness of the leader rather than their ideology and system of governance. All they need is the right person and everything will be different the next time it’s tried.
So rare to see a trope in the wild.
“It looks like these Marxist countries just never had the right leader. The problem is always the ineptness of the leader rather than their ideology and system of governance.”
Or both maybe Wodun; again not mutually exclusive. Communism/socialism are incompetent ideologies and systems of governance advocated by incompetent/inept (sometimes evil) people who lack the ability to understand how unworkable the ideologies are in reality. For instance “defund the police” is an incompetent idea, regardless of who tried to implement it to make it work. Of course if one is an idiot to start with you are more likely to be attracted to nitwit ideas.
President lord help us Bernie Sanders would have been incompetent to implement just about any kind of economic plan. The fact that he is a hard-core lefty socialist(communist) re-distribute the wealth rich people can pay for everything and not even miss it just ask Brian Williams, is not necessarily coincidental to his ineptness. They correlate nicely with each other not at all mutually exclusive.
It’s time for the Dems to use my favorite charge against their opponents: suspicion of intent to conspire.
Their favorite charge used to be “insensitivity to the appearance of impropriety.” Actual impropriety is okay, as long as you are sensitive to appearances.
Giving handies to each other in front of kids at a Pride parade is ok but don’t you dare use any negative adjectives about their politicians like, jerk, crooked, corrupt, or fake news. Those kind of insults are over the line, alert the NSA!