Usual Response

When the Left wins elections (even through fraud), conservatives mutter darkly and go back to work.

When it’s conservatives (“right-wing”) who win elections, the Left goes all hair in fire, e.g.:

French police across the country have launched tear gas at furious activists protesting the far-Right’s massive gains in the European Union elections over the weekend.

Marine Le Pen’s hardline National Rally party won a sweeping victory on Sunday night, taking home 32% of the vote during the election, the first time the continent has voted since 2019.

Of course, the French are revolting (“Always have been, dear heart” murmurs Mr. Free Market) as their collective temper has a hair-trigger at the best of times.  Hell, I remember a time when the loss of an international rugby match got ten thousand angry Frogs parading around the Parc des Princes stadium, screaming “Demission au selecteurs!”

So it can hardly come as a surprise that the Frog Commies would be the first to lose their shit, just at the possibility that their “progressive” agenda may be interrupted by the will of the people.  (Note that it’s only a possibility;  I’ve read the National Rally’s manifesto and it sounds like something JFK’s Ted Sorenson might have written.)

It makes the prospect of a Trump electoral victory in November all the more inviting, dunnit?

The Race Is On

Saw this tragic news at Kenny’s place, and while the comments were just terrible [snork], the first thought that occurred to me was:

“Without Sheila Jackson-Lee, who’s next in line for the title of Stupidest Politician in D.C.?”

I know, I know… the competition is strong, especially when you’ve got that oaf who thought Guam was going to capsize, and there’s always Ole Fayful, Maxine Green.  But the clear favorite has to be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

…but I’ll entertain suggestions in Comments if anyone can think of a bigger moron than she is (gawd help us).

N.B.  I said “stupid” not “evil”, although it’s possible to have both in one person (e.g. Swalwell or Kinzler).

There Goes The Neighborhood

So there’s going to be a General Election in Britishland on Jul 4.  From all accounts, it will be the date on which Britain declared its independence… from sane government.

This is because at the moment, polling suggests that the “Conservative” Party is going to get its ass handed to them, while the Raving Loony Labour Party is going to come to office promising all sorts of the usual Commie bullshit (Tax Teh Rich©, Nationalize Everything© etc.), as well as all the other issues so beloved of modern-day socialists:  absolute belief and support for Global Warming Climate Cooling Change©, ditto for The Great Cultural Assimilation Project©, not to mention the Encourage Lawlessness Principle©.

Don’t be surprised to see the Brexit Referendum overturned either, whereupon Britishland will once again become part of the Fourth Reich©.

I know that The Englishman is utterly despondent about all this;  I tried to contact Mr. Free Market on the topic, but he is incommunicado — no doubt busily trying to organize domicile in Monaco or Bermuda to escape the looming catastrophe.  As for the Sorensons, I do recall hearing a while back some mutterings about the advantages of life in Spain, so maybe they’re also ummm exploring their options.  Or, in a recent email from Mrs. Sor (a.k.a. The Catholic):

“You might find me and Himself as neighbors if the Conservatives lose…”

I don’t even want to think about how much I’d love that.

My other Brit Readers, of course, are welcome to share their feelings on the topic.

What He Said, And More Besides

Actor James Woods is a well-known conservative, despite his profession and location, and in this case he’s right on the money, as usual:

Specifically, here, is the fact that Democrats make it almost impossible for small companies to survive, weighing them down with not only horribly-burdensome but hostile regulations (as above) like minimum wage dictates.

Then, when the inevitable happens and the small companies go out of business or sell out to larger ones, the socialists like Warren moan about the concentration of trade and the need for “more competition”.  (“Price gouging” as referenced by Warren here is meaningless and a red herring.)

May we remind ourselves of food rationing, endless lines formed to get what little food there was, and fixed pricing which led to the ford shortages in the first place?  Where was this so prevalent… wait, it’s all coming back to me…

Ah yes, in the Soviet Union, where the State owned all means of production and likewise the entire food chain.

And Warren, lest we forget, is an outright Stalinist whose remedy for the current situation here would involve State control of pricing (and of course of production and the entire food chain), just to make the market more “efficient”.

Do people like this ever experience cognitive dissonance between what they think and say, while constantly seeing evidence that completely repudiates their worldview?

Clearly not, and Woods has the absolute truth of it.

Straight Out Of The Marxist Playbook

Via Robert Shibley at Insty’s place:

One academic who has written about his approach is Professor Asao Inoue, who claims that individualism is an undesirable aspect of “whiteness.” In his courses, students are not graded down for failing to write in standard English. Instead, he has implemented a “labor based” grading system in which students are graded on the basis of the amount of effort they claim to have put in on an assignment.

Why is this out of the Marxist playbook?  Marxism postulates that what counts in production is not output, but input;  i.e. that the eight hours worked by an assembly-line worker is equivalent to the eight hours worked by the company owner.   (Also see:  women’s professional tennis prize money “parity” at Wimbledon.)

Of course, anyone with a brain knows this to be false, but in the (Marxist) scheme of “equity”, reality has to conform to the dialectic.  Or, to put it into quasi-academic language:

The Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces, whereby a given contradiction is characterized by a primary and a secondary aspect, the secondary succumbing to the primary, which is then transformed into an aspect of a new contradiction. (American Heritage Dictionary)