Thursday, January 31, 2019

The 8 Laws of Bureaucracy

Managerial Bureaucracy operates under these 8 Laws:

1) Managerial bureaucracy has evolved into a class where bureaucrats will act to promote their class      interest and will always act to protect their jobs. If the regulatory powers or even the need for the          existence of a particular bureaucracy is questioned, said bureaucrats will exaggerate or even              fabricate an emergency that only they can address and are therefore necessary.

2) As a corollary to the first law: The chief bureaucrat will always lobby the legislature and the                  media to increase his budget and scope of regulatory powers with claims that whatever subject is        within the purview of that bureaucracy is a problem that is worse than everyone thought and is an        emergency that the public and the legislature must act upon at once by granting more money and        more powers to the said bureaucracy.

3) Once a bureaucracy is created to address a specific problem, it is never disbanded when its                 ostensible purpose if fulfilled. See the first and second laws.

4) Bureaucracies will expand in size and scope of regulatory power not because they need to but            because they can. There is both the perception of limitless funding from the taxpayers and the          precautionary principle with the undefined "public good" which means no limiting principle is                ever articulated to curb their growth or power.

5) The chief bureaucrat must ensure that the entirety of his allocated budget is fully spent as proof of       his ability to accurately predict operational expenses. He will therefore near the end of the                   budgetary period expend unused monies on unnecessary projects to accomplish this. Otherwise,         rather than be rewarded for efficiency and cost savings the chief bureaucrat will face criticism               from legislators for poor budgetary prediction and the bureaucracy's budget will be cut as                     punishment.

6) If a bureaucracy in a certain event fails in its purpose, new bureaucracies are created to better             cover the reasons for the failure keeping the original bureaucracy in place and unchanged. See           the first law.

7) As a result of the first four laws, there will always be examples of bureaucracies duplicating each        other's function. The first law second sentence is invoked if this duplication is noticed and                    questioned.

8) All bureaucrats must be smarter and more competent than their subordinates and from the top            down must be seen micro-managing their subordinates as proof of such and to ensure regulatory        and ideological compliance. Actual relative intelligence or competence between ranks not                    withstanding. Further, the chain of command is inviolate no matter how inefficient or prone to                failure    it may be. Success is not an option and all violators who circumvent the rules without              authorization or circumvent higher ranking bureaucrats will be ruthlessly hunted down and                    destroyed.


Donald Cavaioli



Monday, January 28, 2019

Note to College Point and Other Towns in Queens: Your Homeless Shelter Protests Will Fail and Here's Why

https://www.timesledger.com/stories/2019/3/cpshelterrally_2019_01_18_q.html?utm_source=20190115&utm_medium=email&utm_content=College+Point+residents+take+their+homeless+shelter+fight+to+City+Hall&utm_campaign=newsletter

The above link is to a Times Ledger story from last January 15th as College Point residents are protesting a proposed homeless shelter. This protest and the others like it will all fail and for the same reason: You cannot debate or protest any subject when you accept the fundamental premises of your opponent. There is no debate in such a case, there only quibbling over minor details.
 The first and most effective action taken should really be to stop voting for liberal Democrats however, I digress.

So here's the mistake all these homeless shelter protests make: They accept the premise that there is a need for these homeless shelters and that the tax payers must finance them and must have them in someone's neighborhood. Just not in their neighborhood.

First of all, this isn't protesting or debating, it is quibbling over where the shelters are placed with feeble excuses about amenities, infrastructure and the like. Our fellow citizens from other neighborhoods or the other boroughs will not be persuaded to support the protester's cause because it appears like NIMBY College Point is simply trying to toss the hot potato of the homeless shelter into someone else's lap. And they sure as hell don't want it either. Trivial bickering and whining with city officials will not win friends and influence people. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, you're just a group of noisy pests. Forget support from the mainstream news media as they are deep in the pockets of the political and managerial ruling class and will toe the official narrative without question. Expect no articles in support of the protest or even a sympathetic mention if it goes against official government policy.

In order for these protests to be successful, it is necessary to garner wide-spread support for the cause that will get elected politicians nervous about their re-election chances.

Secondly, there is the power dynamic between the residents and city officials. Accepting the basic premise of the necessity of the homeless shelters puts College Point residents into the position of supplicants begging the city to not put a shelter in their neighborhood and having to explain their reasons to the city. City officials are now in the position of the boss with the power to grant your plea or refuse it. If the supplicant's plea is denied, there is no recourse.

Further, understand also that working within the system and playing by the rules set up by that system is a losing proposition. The rules exist and are designed to protect the system and the ruling class here only plays by these rules or will break the rules when it suits them. It should also be anticipated that our managerial overlords will employ such dirty tricks as planting saboteurs in the protest who will say and do outrageous and offensive things as a way of discrediting the protest with news media people primed and ready to film it.

Now consider a successful protest.
Consider the Vietnam anti war protests. The protesters wanted all U.S. soldiers withdrawn, not arguing over troop numbers, where they were deployed or the rules of engagement. U.S. out of Vietnam now was the stated goal.

First we see that the protesters have taken an opposite position of the Johnson administration. The protesters are forcing President Johnson and his advisors to explain and justify the war (officially a police action) in Vietnam to the American people. The protesters are in charge of the situation and the President of the United States is a subordinate forced to explain himself which he was unable to do nor even to articulate how or when victory could be achieved. The light at the end of the tunnel rhetoric quickly wore thin. The result of the protests was that Lyndon Johnson faced serious opposition from within his own party and was forced not to run for re-election. Richard Nixon was then elected on the promise of withdrawing from Vietnam. A successful protest that changed U.S. policy.

Another more recent successful example of advocacy is the National Rifle Association. The NRA opposes all gun control proposals, no compromise. This type of stance prevents the left's slowly cooking the frog incrementalism of asking for small concessions one after the other until they completely achieve their goal. Take the opposite position and concede or yield nothing. Compromise is seen by the left as backing down and once you start backing down to them, you will never stop backing down until you are completely defeated. Nice guy moderates don't finish last, they are crushed.

In conclusion, again the first action taken should really be to stop voting liberal Democrat. But if protests are in order, they should not be over placement of homeless shelters but that there should not be any tax payer funded homeless shelters at all. Take the opposite stance and force city officials to explain why the working people who have enough trouble making ends meet should finance an ever growing population of homeless people from around the country. We can concede to state hospitals for the psychologically disabled (like we once had, thanks Geraldo) who cannot care for themselves but the rest should be seen to by churches and privately run charities. If you can't take this position, at least as rhetoric used in protests, because you're a prog or too much a stay-in-the-liberal-herd normie then why bother protesting at all. Just suck it up.


Donald Cavaioli


Saturday, January 26, 2019

Ascribing Moral Agency to Conventions is Intellectual and Moral Cowardice

There are those who will incessantly rail against this or that convention (institution, philosophical or political concept, religion or ideology) or inanimate objects as if words on a page or the inanimate object has some kind of sentience, moral agency or ability to act. The very notion is of course absurd as only human beings have sentience, moral agency and the ability to act. Just because human beings write the words on a page or construct machines this does not then imbue these things with a life and mind of their own. For those who like to claim words have meaning, yes words do indeed have meaning insofar as they convey ideas and information but that information has no force except when another human acts on it. This is an indisputable fact.

As conventions and inanimate objects cannot exercise free will and choice, why then do some people insist that they can? This can be seen in situations ranging bicycle social justice warriors challenging cars, or in their own parlance, "2000 pound death machines", firearms or the triggering of a boomer Indian and his buddies, the news media and an angry twitter lynch mob because a 15 year old boy was wearing a red "Make America Great Again" cap.  The answer is simply the moral and intellectual cowardice of those who hold this view. A refusal to acknowledge moral responsibility for their own choices or actions, a sort of "the devil made me do it", "I was triggered" or "I was just following orders" excuse. This is intellectual and moral cowardice in refusing to accept responsibility for their actions as well as their own moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

Not to be overlooked in this are those who rail against the real estate industry, corporations and banks, institutions that of themselves have and moral agency nor can be expected to have any. Morality is the sole province the the human beings that operate them and the only metric they can be judged against is whether or not they are obeying the laws governing them. Anyone who interacts with these institutions must exercise their own due diligence in interacting with said institutions and accept their own personal responsibility when the situations is unfavorable to them. That is as long as said institution was operating within the law which otherwise is a matter for the courts.

It may salve the ego to blame some institutions, 2000 pound death machine, guns or red baseball caps for when interactions go bad but again this is merely cowardice and laziness in which no lesson in personal responsibility or due diligence is learned. To maintain one is right in the face of this is the sign of a reprehensible character who must lie in order to make their claims of victimhood.


Donald Cavaioli



Monday, January 21, 2019

The Nation of Immigrants/Civic Nationalism Fallacy

Acting Globally:
The vast majority of people who subscribe to the utopian ideal of the citizen of the world cosmopolitanism are white liberals in North America, Australia and Europe whereas the vast majority of the rest of the world still believe in blood and soil nationalism. This is something any reader from New York City can see for themselves with the recent non-European immigrants who tend to live in their own ethnic enclaves, some of which like Flushing resemble virtual colonies after ethnic cleansing. These are examples of imperialism.

This balkanization cannot be due to racism or housing discrimination which is today not only outlawed and actively pursued and punished but because people generally prefer to live among others like themselves. A people who share a common history, language, culture and customs is in fact the definition of nation and people tend to prefer their own nation over others, if not be overtly patriotic.
The racism charge is commonly used to lay the blame for the earlier generations of immigrants from the 19th and early 20th century living in their respective ethnic ghettos. Although, in light of these current observations, it would be possible to say that the earlier "Ellis Island" immigrants lived in ethnic ghettos more by choice in preference of living among their own people who shared a common language, culture and customs than from native discrimination. Whereas they may have suffered some forms of discrimination in the past, still the racism charge could be handy today for deflecting native criticism of not fully assimilating back then and justifying retaining a hyphenated American identity today. For when an immigrant does not fully jettison their old language and culture in favor of the new country's, they do not really assimilate to the new culture and never truly joins the American nation. This hesitancy to fully assimilate can even be seen in the descendants of the "Ellis Island" immigrants, many of whom still honor their ancestor's old country ways and further describe themselves as hyphenated Americans. Changing one's way of life to a new way of life is not always as easy as it sounds even generations later. Immigrants will find it difficult or will be resistant to assimilating into the culture of the new country and learning the new language (if that is the case) if there are ethnic enclaves of their own people where they may live and there is no encouragement or impetus for assimilation from the natives or local government. It is very difficult to leave behind a lifetime's worth of experience and the familiar old country ways practiced for many generations that have been successful for that particular people and is to them, the best way to do things.

This doesn't mean all immigrants or their descendants do not completely assimilate and cannot cooperate with other ethnic groups but that the ones who do are the outliers, not the average. The impact of the outlier on the overall community is limited if not ineffectual.

The civic nationalist is one who believes in the nation of immigrants meme, a meme which was not ever mentioned in American history before the early 20th century (the melting pot meme was from a 1908 play of the same name) and was not in popular vogue until the advent of the Hart-Celler immigration act of 1965. The civic nationalist erroneously believes in the universality of  liberal democracy, religious freedom, freedom of speech, individual liberty and property rights contained in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the rise of the nation of immigrants meme is an example of how immigrants have already altered the culture and very history of the U.S. to suit their own interests by retconning the centrality of immigration with hyphenated, not completely assimilated Americans to the very soul of America.

Whereas the civic nationalist believes that anyone who takes up residency in the U.S. can be or is in fact automatically an American by virtue of just being here, he is completely wrong as he eschews the definition and concept of nation. The definition of a nation is a people who share a common history, culture, customs and religion. It is impossible, therefore, for there to be a nation of immigrants from many different cultures as it defies the meaning of the word. The concept of nation cannot be conflated with mere residency or only as the concept of government.

Different people of different nations who live under a common government is really the definition of an empire and what does history teach us about the fate of empires
We should then carefully consider if the path of empire is really one we want to follow and if allowing the aforementioned imperialism to flourish in our own country is really a good thing.

Furthermore, the ideals of the Enlightenment upon which our republic was founded were formed and took shape in Christian western Europe. Other peoples, not of European origin or necessarily Christians, who have no history of liberal democracy may understand the concept on a purely abstract, intellectual level but may not fully accept it, assimilate it and truly live it as it is a way wholly outside their experience. Recall what I observed how people will tend to think their own native ways that have been practiced in their own homelands for centuries are the best. Why would they completely accept the foreign concepts and foreign ways of western liberal democracy as they would feel that their own ways have always worked well enough for them. Some may even reject the ideals of western liberal democracy for whatever reason even if they have lived in the U.S. for any appreciable amount of time and are well read on the subject. In any case, why, then would they not try to alter the cultural and political landscape here to align more with their own ways of doing things.

What the civic nationalist really fails or refuses to recognize is that when immigrants of any particular nationality increase their population to a significant enough size, they will elect their own people to office who will then act in the best interest of their fellow countrymen and then try to alter the cultural landscape around them to be more suitable to themselves. This inevitably leads to a situation where these different ethnic groups cannot cooperate with other groups as they have different interests, different norms of behavior and so there will be no sense of an overall community. If anything, these different groups will conflict with each other over which group will wield the most power, redistribute the most public wealth to their own people and control which culture(s) will dominate the community. Violent civil conflict as a result is also a possibility.

Despite all this, the civic nationalist still clings to the mystic belief that anyone from anywhere in the world can become a true, pocket Constitution carrying, tricorn hat wearing American by virtue of the transformative powers of our unique American magic dirt.

Thinking locally:
Here in Queens our managerial apparatchiks and their lickspittals like to boast about our being the most diverse borough in New York city with some 138 languages or 800 spoken here depending on your source. If we can't even agree on a common language as the subject of English as our official language is strictly forbidden, or a common culture as the state's ruling party's globalist multiculturalism forbids our native culture holding sway, then how could we agree on anything and what do we have in common if we're so globally diverse? How can we be a cohesive community under these circumstances?

The answer is no. We can't be a community and this is to the benefit of our Democrat overlords one party county, city and state. First, as all the various ethnic and identity groups have nothing in common with each other, we as a community can never form any sizeable or effective opposition to the various plots and plans our rulers of which we may not want. And as many of these newcomer groups, hail from third world, strong man dictatorships, they would see nothing wrong with having a one party dictatorship here. If it works for them back home so why not here too and why should they care if rest of us do not want it or how it will affect us if it favors them?
Second, we have a good percentage of transient residents who really don't care about this borough as they are just passing through. Like many of the newcomers who plan on staying for a long while, the transients really do not see this as their home so why should they give a shit about what happens here and whether it's a good thing for us or not. They have their own home towns or home countries they really care most about. This is just a place they stay for their respective benefits so the history and native culture of Queens and her towns means nothing to them. This also applies to native-born white middle Americans who flock here to play at being "edgy and urban" while trying all the while to force their suburban "Joneses" lifestyle and pop-culture liberal progressivism on us. However I digress.

Really, we're more like a borough-sized, long-term residency hotel with guests from around the country and around the world having nothing more in common with each other than we are all staying in the same hotel. The guests are here for their own reasons, do not care about the concerns or problems of the other guests and generally treat the hotel Queens and its employees, the native residents, with ill-disguised contempt.


Donald Cavaioli


Thursday, January 10, 2019

The Liberal Progressive's Strange Beliefs of Sentience and Moral Agency

I so far write mostly about the left, not because I like it but because here in New York City, progressive liberalism, a term which the far left wears as a skin suit, is the prevailing paradigm and understanding the left is key to understanding how and why things work here.

As I've posted before here and here, the liberal progressive tends to deny that human beings have any moral agency. That is, people cannot consciously make choices that are good or evil or act in their own best interests. One's nature is unchangeable and is determined by whether one is born in the dogmatically determined angel groups or in the devil groups of the left's materialist ontology.

It should be noted all liberal policies are designed to control human actions, for their own good of course, as only prog elites are smart enough to know what is good for us all. They, the leftist progressive liberal elite, are the smartest people on earth and are the only people smart enough to declare themselves the smartest people on earth. Everyone else, not belonging to the progressive elite, not only do not have moral agency but are programmable NPC (non-playable character) meat puppets that require constant their constant monitoring and guidance. Laws, rules and regulations and more laws, rules and regulations are the solution to every problem. If that doesn't work, then create even more laws, rules and regulations.

However, liberals do believe that some inanimate objects not only possess a sentience of sorts but have full moral agency. Again, this is based on the liberal progressive's emotional reaction, good feels or bad feels, to various inanimate objects. Needless to say, any human who possesses bad objects are classified as the left's devils. Here are two such objects:

The first item in this category has to be firearms. Guns not only kill people of their own volition but they appear to have a sentience and a will that can compel a human being holding them to kill other humans. A gun, a machine really, in fact has moral agency and in order to deter the thing from acting out it's homicidal tendencies, the liberal progressive tries to prevent humans from possessing firearms for their own good. Failing that, after each shooting, more gun control laws are passed and larger gun free zone signs are posted. It is in the hope that the humanoid NPC (non-playable character that leftists are and assume everyone else to be) with the gun will assimilate the new laws or notice the larger signs and communicate this to the firearm, who will then see the error of its ways and not kill people.

The second item is the internal combustion automobile. This class of vehicles, more often SUVs, seems to take some kind of delight in spewing exhaust fumes to passively kill people with pollution or global warming, or actively kill people, especially bicyclists for whom that the 2000 pound death machines have an unusual hatred for, by hitting them. To combat this, our glorious leaders will enact more vehicle and traffic laws in the hope that these new laws will be obeyed more by motor vehicles than the old laws. The liberal solution to all problems is always more new laws. At some point, one law will finally be obeyed by these machines.

Of course, none of the remedies the progs apply to these two items work as progs cannot really understand human nature. If one starts from flawed basic premises to solve problems then the solution will not work no matter how hard the progressive liberal attempts to force the square peg of human moral agency into the round hole of their materialist dogma. People disobey laws because they choose to, not because an inanimate object compelled them to. If people disobey one set of laws, adding new laws on top of the old laws will not deter them. You cannot cure people of their humanity.


Donald Cavaioli








Tuesday, January 8, 2019

Objective Truth in History

Where it  might be possible to approach an objective truth in history, it is exceedingly difficult, if not completely impossible to escape subjective biases. Then intellectual honesty with some measure of humility is necessary to accept criticism and to review information which would contradict one's theory explaining a historical event. Through debate, it is possible to approach a more objective and comprehensive explanation of history.

My purpose in writing previous posts is to propose postulates as a basis to build a theory by observing past historical events to discern a pattern that may be analogous to current events. It is as if fitting the pieces of a puzzle together to build an overview of the political and social problems we face today which should provide a way of predicting what will happen next and, it is hoped, can suggest solutions for these problems. It is a large task, most likely never to be completed, with more to explore and I've only just started to scratch the surface with some observations and suggestions.

One thing I will not do is start with a pre-determined theory and cherry pick or distort facts to fit my theory. All I have written so far I have carefully considered and am confident that I can successfully defend from challenge. However, if I am presented with facts and arguments that can conclusively refute my theories, surviving rebuttal, then I am willing to stand corrected. Correct postulates and data form the foundation of sound theories which can be most useful for predicting and solving problems. This, to me, is more important than my ego. Clarity and understanding are my goals and I will post new pieces (not every day but when I can) as they come to me to further these goals and see to where we are going.

I hope you the reader will find this blog useful for this purpose.


Donald Cavaioli

Wednesday, January 2, 2019

The Angels and Devils of the Left

Previously I've described the left emoter's rejection of reason and his emotional flowchart to explain how he can take often contradictory positions. Let's now explore the how and why of  the Marxist/Marxian "good guys" and "bad guys". From this we gain some insight on the workings of the progressive left and formulate testable theories that can make reliable predictions especially in regards to us in Queens and New York City. It's always good to understand why things happen as they do and to have an idea as to what could happen next, read the summary and conclusion.

Summary:
All Marxist and Marxian ideologies are based on Marx's material dialectics of the conflict between a stark, binary dichotomy of  a thesis (the good guys) and the antithesis (the bad guys). In all cases, the thesis and antithesis are dealt with not as individuals but as groups and these groups are assumed not to have any moral agency. This means that characteristics of being good or evil depends on what group (thesis or antithesis) one belongs to and individual actions cannot change this immutable quality. It means the bad guys are born bad and act bad, cannot do anything other that victimize the good guys and can never do anything right or good. It also means that the good guys are always good no matter what they do, cannot act in their own best self interest and are therefore always helpless victims who can never do any wrong. Hence, the emotional good feels for the good guys with endless puerile excuses for any and all of their bad behavior and mindless hate for the bad feels caused by the bad guys. This leads the leftist to regard the emotional pain of his bad feels to be worse than physical pain which is used to fully justify the leftist's physical assault on those who have hurt his feelings by mere speech the leftist finds hurtful.

It's sort of like a secular humanist Calvinism where one is fated from birth to go to Marxist heaven or hell and nothing can be done to change one's destiny. Marxist/Marxian ideologies are, in fact, a materialist religious cult whose promises of higher status and equality of outcome despite ability and merit is irresistible to low performance, low competency and low social status types. For further reading on the subject, the Bloody Shovel blog has a post with more details on the socialist personality type called Biological Leninism found here. It's a long read but very insightful and worth the time.

Modern progressive leftists have abandoned the old orthodox Marxist concept of proletarian worker good guys (regardless of race or ethnicity) thesis versus bourgeoisie capitalist oppressor bad guys (again regardless of race or ethnicity) antithesis for identity grievance/victim group good guys thesis versus white Christian heterosexual men oppressor bad guys antithesis. The group lack of moral agency, immutable good or evil based on group membership still holds true. Forget the old left-right socio-economic politics, it's all identity interest politics now.

In the old orthodox Marxism, there was only one angel group and one devil group but identity politics have now complicated the angel group with a plethora of  identity victim/grievance group angels. Therefore, rather than debate how many victim angels can dance on the head of an oppressed group pin, the angels have been stratified into an ever shifting caste hierarchy as different groups jockey for the position of more victim than thou.
So just as in Orwell's Animal Farm, all animals are created equal but some animals are more equal than others.

Going Forward:
Then where does this leave white European descended liberals and progressives? Nominally in charge as they usually were, at least for the present, as this identity devil was created by progressive ruling class types to hamstring potential opposition by building a coalition of identity grievance groups they believed were easier to manipulate and control. But the white prog rulers have overestimated the power of their unfulfilled promises of Equality Utopia and the ambitions and tribalism of the victim identity grievance groups. So that is now changing with the recent elections of identity group politicians who appeal to, and support the interests of, only their own identity groups such as Michigan Democrats Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar and New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Eventually, the old white liberal progressive leadership will be replaced by new identity groups at first in coalitions but later to fragment in victimhood status mongering, ideological purity spirals and tribalism until one group emerges to rule supreme.

The Old Ruling Left's Downfall:
It is interesting to note the level of obsequious virtue signalling among white liberals and progressives and in voting for identity grievance group candidates as if it will magically check their white privilege and innate racism and earn brownie points as "woke" goodwhites with the other identity groups that they hope will favor them accordingly. This was a factor in Ocasio-Cortez's election with white millennial residents of Sunnyside and Astoria engaging in just such obsequious virtue signalling in addition to a generational distaste for "boomers" such as incumbent Joe Crowley. It's a purely emotional choice for the rank and file progressives.

But what the white liberals and progressives forget is that having designated white Christians of European descent as the devils responsible for all evil, that for all their most unctuous virtue signalling and repudiations of Christianity, they are still white and in the eyes of the Identity Marx god, still permanently stained with the original sins of white privilege and racism. Thus they are innately and irredeemably evil. In the end, nothing will save them and even if they subscribe to the notion of feeding others to the identity politics crocodile when eventually the croc will get around to eating them too. This also applies to Jewish liberal progressives as they appear as white and therefore just as guilty of the sin of whiteness as any Christian. Negative, antisemetic stereotypes in common culture would just add more fuel to the fire. So despite some protestations as being somehow "people of color", actual people of color will not accept them as such, not even as honorary people of color, as skin pigmentation is inescapable.
So for what started for the old white rulers of the progressive left as a vehicle for permanent power will eventually be the engine of their own downfall.

Conclusion:
The leftist always emotes and will use what intellect they have to justify irrational or contradictory positions and always needs an enemy against which to define themselves. However, it's more than just the dopamine rush of good feels, these people in fact need an enemy to struggle against. Otherwise they cannot define themselves as a thesis with a messianic mission to save the world and suffer an existential meltdown in realizing what purposeless nobodies they are. Thus the lost, broken soul is perpetually at war with anyone and any cause will do. But what the leftist themselves never realize is that after destroying all other enemies, the movement, still needing enemies, will turn in on itself in a cannibalistic frenzy of purity spirals. The goodthinker and good follower of today will be the cast out of heaven for whatever new sin du jour to become the devil of tomorrow. The leftist never seems to grasp from history that he is more likely to become the zek in the camp or the body in the ditch rather the commissar or apparatchik living it up in the socialist paradise.

To my fellow New Yorkers and neighbors in the borough of Queens, bear all this in mind and be careful what you choose. In Progressivism, position and leadership is given, not earned, based on ideological purity, identity and personal loyalty to party leadership. Competence and ability do not even come into play with all that entails in the operation of the city which is something you can all see for yourselves as we slouch towards Idiocracy. The party leaders, electeds and bureaucratic apparatchiks view themselves as the high priests and warlords of this holy progressive crusade. In following the managerial state model, they become socially and culturally isolated from the people over whom they govern so whatever programs or plans they implement, it is for the benefit of themselves or their chosen vassals, not us. If the city's programs go against you in some way, understand that this is either a feature of the program and not a bug or it's callous indifference to the unintended consequences because "the cause" is more important than any mere pleb and his problems. This is why I say Mayor de Blasio is in fact a true man of the left as he fits this pattern. To all those  who whine how he is not "muh real progressive", remember what I've just written about the cause being more important than individual plebs and their problems. To those of you who harken back to the progressivism of Teddy Roosevelt, get over it. The Marxist and Marxian leftists have co-opted the term and wear it and the term liberalism like a skin suit. It's not your grandpa's progressivism or liberalism, it's their terms now.

It's time to think heuristically, jettison modern liberalism and progressivism and go back to a smaller, less powerful central government model.


Donald Cavaioli
 .








Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's Call to "White Supremacist" to Repent Their Sins and Accept the Mercy of the Inquisition

From The Huffington Post: "Ocasio-Cortez Speaks Directly To White Supremacists In Surprise Appeal" by Ed Mazza, posted August 7,...