My friend Augustino in Oregon has made it a hobby to study the manners and customs of the Left. He says there are enough insecurities and self-contradictions among them as to make Dr Freud curious about them as a type and he plans to write a book about it. He even has a crew who’re trained to pick fights with them on the internet by pushing on those insecurity buttons.
With that in mind I asked Augie to look at some Article V web-articles, at the behest of another friend (in Virginia) who’s been involved in that Article V debate. He said he saw some similarities to what has always been associated with leftwing slime-tactics, and wanted to know if Augie agreed.
Augustino said the Left operates at several levels, usually based on age, education, and worldliness. They are almost never solo activists, where their insecurities show, much like inner city blacks outside their turf, alone and in public places.. So most are linked into some sort of strategic hierarchy. Most are kids, and go where potty-mouths most often go, places like DailyKos, where they fit in with other lost boys, trying to out-scat-talk one another. Higher up the food chain others get involved in more serious blogs, joining whichever side suits their ideological fancy. They try a variety of arguments. But in a pinch, the potty mouth-snide put-down is the trademark leftist way of discussing things.
Conservatives don’t do that…well, at least they didn’t. Since the Left’s purpose is chaos, not reason, and aggressive animalistic displays, like apes beating on their chests, are most likely to produce that result, running off decent people off the road, they choose that low road.
In the Left’s world, bullying wins. It’s almost impossible to have a discussion with anyone who is calling you …”Stupid” “Idiot”, “Liar” in every other breath. In many places, they can clear a room pretty quickly. The atheo-gay left has been especially effective at this strategy of late.
But Augie points out that finding this sort of behavior among people professing to be conservatives…(I’ve seen this at prominent conservative sites such as RedState.com)…causes one to wonder if the behavior isn’t cultural and generational instead of political.
In the few polite Article V articles I’ve read, which are all by conservative writers, even scholars, these little mobsters have come in, but universally taken the pro-Article V side of the debate. Why would little leftists lend support to a pro-Article V article, such as one by the respected scholar Rob Natelson, who is accusing liberals of “suckering conservatives” into taking anti-Article V positions? Since it’s pretty clear Alinsky-tactics belong to Article V supporters, that makes no sense at all.
Article V is a subject I would have thought the Left had little interest in…until someone pointed out to that the Left has been in favor of an Article V amendment process since Reagan, and especially now, in light of the Citizens’ United Supreme Court decision, which declared that corporations are the same as people, every bit as much as labor unions have always been.
In the current political climate, where the Left is largely despised, they must massage “weak conservatism” the way Obama does McConnell, appealing to his vanities and making him feel like an accepted players. The Left has to try and dress up their positions in the language of the people and use others to deliver them., They don’t have to draft an amendment, all they have to do is flatter, then insinuate certain language into resolutions that can be nuanced and parsed at a later time. That way, the Left doesn’t have to go into a convention to get what it wants. All it needs to do is seduce the vain-and-avaricious wing of conservatism to do their work for them.
That may be what’s going on here, for God knows there are plenty of that kind in the GOP, if you’ve followed the tea-and-croissant wing of the Tea Party movement, such as Tea Party Patriots, Jenny Beth Martin and, it seems its co-founder, Mark Meckler, who is the co-founder of the Convention of States/Citizens for Self-Governance Project, which does seem to bring us full-circle…for they seem to be the primary source of Alinksky-ist slime-tactics inside conservative circles.
I’m sure Prof Natelson is not in bed with liberals, but since one of the Left’s favorite tricks is to accuse conservatives of their own conspiracy, someone may have taken advantage of his friendship. If you’ll read the rather lengthy comments to the CNS article I just linked, you will see it’s filled with classic Alinsky lies and name-calling, only being pushed by (hired, volunteer?) writers purporting to be conservatives. (I personally believe they are mercs). It’s filled with just that…so-called conservatives accusing other conservatives of their own lies, sliming just about every nay-sayer that comes their way. I’m sure Prof. Natelson doesn’t want to own this bunch, but who will claim them?
In fact, one of the lady commenters there pointed a finger at a self-described conservative who often is found at the bottom of this name-calling; Mark Meckler, setting me off on the chase, which will take a few more articles in coming days and weeks. In seeking out slime in the Article V debate, my research is all pointing in one direction.
If a man quacks like a Leftist, and waddles like a Left, it might just be Mark Meckler.
Wenn es wie ein Linker quaken,
Wenn es wie ein Linker waddlen
Ist is ein Meckler
This is a deep subject. So stay tuned.