Skip to main content

Paul Krugman in Blunderland: A Fisking

Paul Krugman is something of an enigma. How is it that somebody so blatantly historically, economically, and politically illiterate is so well regarded and gets so much screen time and page space to bloviate about current events? The answer is very obvious of course, Paul Krugman is a darling of the Left because he hates America, everything about America, and wishes heartily that America would be more like the great totalitarian dictatorships he admires, especially China.

Earlier today, in his most recent assault on common sense, Krugman published an opinion piece in what used to be something more than low grade, non-absorbent toilet paper, The New York Times. In it he does his best Chicken Little impression and bewails that the sky is falling and the ruins of American democracy are getting pummeled by its pieces.

Strangely, he decides to cite the Roman Republic’s collapse as a pattern of the dark, totalitarian nightmare that America is descending into, thanks to its election of Donald Trump. And his sixty million plus voters are all part of a totalitarian mob of Republicans who are out to smash the Republic (one of many words he uses without any idea what it means) into a million pieces. And darkness and a plague of locusts will spread o’er the land. Something like that. His piece is basically the hysterical ravings of an atheist Moses wannabe, preaching to the Children of America about how they have smashed up all of the commandments and put a golden hued despot onto the throne of America.

So let's dig into his ravings and see what humor can be derived at his expense. As usual, his comments will be in italics and mine will be in bold.  

Many people are reacting to the rise of Trumpism and nativist movements in Europe by reading history — specifically, the history of the 1930s. And they are right to do so. It takes willful blindness not to see the parallels between the rise of fascism and our current political nightmare.

Ah yes, the typical liberal sneers at the lower classes who dare to go against what their betters tell them is best for them. How dare those unwashed peasants in Europe want to reclaim their national sovereignty?! How dare Britain want to quit being subject to the whims of the unelected and increasingly powerful apparatchiks of the EU? How dare Germany have anybody in it who has the unmitigated GALL to say that they would prefer to not have their homes invaded with violent “refugees” who rape, murder, and thieve at unprecedented rates. Any female who gets raped by a violent Islamic rape-fugee...well it was entirely their fault for being out there.

As for the Americans, how dare they have the sheer AUDACITY to go to the ballot box and vote for a man who...says the federal government is a bunch of corrupt crooks who are trampling the rights of the American people. And this selfsame man is currently appointing a bunch of, of, actual CONSERVATIVES to his cabinet, people who actually don’t think that the federal government has a right to dictate what you can do with a puddle on your own land, force you to pay expensive premiums for a poor quality health insurance Ponzi scheme, take away more of your money than either the Koran or the Bible mandates for their adherents, and most astonishingly of all...think that the government shouldn’t dictate what you believe and throw into a reeducation camp if you don’t follow their dictates. Oh the horrors!  Before you know it, the government won’t be in a lawsuit with the Little Sisters of the Poor anymore either, trying to force them to go against the dictates of their conscience and faith. I know, it's practically Nazi Germany.

Also, let’s see. Adolf Hitler came to power by running on an explicitly socialist platform (anybody know what the acronym NAZI spells out? If you do, congratulations, you're smarter than the NYT. Very low bar of course, but still something to take pride in) and once democratically elected (meaning that a lot of people wanted socialism. As much as Krugman might hate to admit it, fascism is a form of socialism. Just like communism is a form of socialism. It's quite the storied ideology.), started to aggressively push for gun control, crackdown on free speech (I’m sorry, “fake news” i.e anything that didn’t go along the NAZI party line), and persecute any Christian who didn’t go along with their dictates.

Yes that sounds like the Republican party all right, always trying to take people's guns, limit your free speech to the Orwellian named “free speech zones”, and persecute people of faith. It's practically in their party platform, unlike those crazy Ayn Rand libertarians, the Democrats. Who welcome diversity of thought (so long as none shows up) and free expression of religion (so long as it's from a Koran).

Here’s what I learned: Republican institutions don’t protect against tyranny when powerful people start defying political norms. And tyranny, when it comes, can flourish even while maintaining a republican facade.

Powerful people...you mean like when Hillary Clinton used the Clinton Foundation to peddle influence for pay? Or when she was involved in letting Russia buy a bunch of our uranium? Or when Senator Reid decided to suspend the filibuster so that eh could ram more Obama’s agenda through with no holdups from those pesky Republicans?(Speaking of which, the shoe is very definitely on the other foot regarding that now. The Democrats shot themselves in the foot. But then, Democrats aren't very good at the long view. If they were, they wouldn’t be Democrats.)

Or how about when Obama and his assorted apparatchiks rammed through Obamacare, using the shadiest of legal maneuverings and going against the expressed will of the majority of Americans? The boondoggle of Obamacare was passed without a single bipartisan vote. Yep, very above board and wise of the Noble Democrats. And afterward, when Obama took the attitude that his pen was mightier than the American people's’ ballots (that took away his majorities in the Senate and House) and started trying his hardest to rule by executive order...yes that was very freedom and democracy loving of him. Otherwise for darn sure Paul Krugman would have been there to cite the Roman Republic and shake a freedom loving finger in Obama’s face.

On the first point: Roman politics involved fierce competition among ambitious men. But for centuries that competition was constrained by some seemingly unbreakable rules. Here’s what Adrian Goldsworthy’s “In the Name of Rome” says: “However important it was for an individual to win fame and add to his and his family’s reputation, this should always be subordinated to the good of the Republic … no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a foreign power.”

Hmm. So when vaunted liberal icon Ted Kennedy explicitly attempted to enlist the help of the USSR (that would be the Soviet Union for those of you under 25) in helping his attempt to prevent Ronald Reagan from getting reelected in 1984, that was just...youthful high spirits I guess. On the other hand, when Russia MIGHT have had something to do with the hack that let the entire world see the depths of the Democratic party’s egotism, arrogance, and rigging of the primary...that is somehow the Republicans’ (of which there is not one shred of any proof that any Republican attempted to get the Russians to intervene) fault. Yes that makes perfect sense. Right is wrong, and wrong is right and up is down. Forget Alice in Wonderland, Krugman in Blunderland would be a much funnier book. And make even less sense.

Krugman’s beef isn’t that his party is guilty of all the preceding things...it's that everybody knows about it now. Which is unfair. Sleeping jackasses should be left to lie in peace and without contradiction I guess.

And what happens to the republic as a result? Famously, on paper the transformation of Rome from republic to empire never happened. We may not go down exactly the same route — although are we even sure of that? — but the process of destroying democratic substance while preserving forms is already underway.

I actually agree with Krugman here(pause for shocked gasp). The United States, which is a REPUBLIC not a democracy for anybody who either never took a civics class, or had the misfortune to go to public school, has had its institutions of law under assault for a long time. However, pretty much all of the major violators of America’s institutions had one thing in common. They all had a “D” next to their name at the ballot box. From Woodrow Wilson, who started pushing for the Constitution to be a “living document” that justified whatever government growth the Democrats wanted, to FDR, who attempted to pack and intimidate the Supreme Court to force it to accede to his wishes, to Obama, who attacked the separation of powers by ruling through executive order and publicly lashed out at the Supreme Court when they didn’t go along with his little totalitarian acts...Democrats have been trying to tear this country’s institutions down and mold them into obedient servants of their totalitarian impulses.

And Americans are tired of it. Which is why, along with Donald Trump in the executive branch, the Republicans kept their majorities in the Senate and House. They are at their strongest position across the USA since 1928. The Democrats’ failures are ever more evident to ever more people. But Krugman and his ilk plan to keep doubling down on failure, and keep pushing for statist authoritarianism.  You would think that Venezuela's failure and implosion as a direct result of implementing socialism would give Krugman pause for thought, but it won’t. It's all America’s fault Venezuela is failing anyhow. Somehow. Everything that’s wrong in the world is.

Consider what just happened in North Carolina. The voters made a clear choice, electing a Democratic governor. The Republican legislature didn’t openly overturn the result — not this time, anyway — but it effectively stripped the governor’s office of power, ensuring that the will of the voters wouldn’t actually matter.

Hmm. The North Carolina legislature acted well within their legal limits to put some restrictions on the damage that the incoming Governor can do. I like how Krugman tries to slyly claim that they might overturn a gubernatorial election, if not now then next time. Yes, because the difference between the NC legislature using its legal powers granted under the laws of North Carolina to restrict aspects of the executive branch and completely pissing on them by...I guess declaring martial law and putting Governor McCrory into office for a second term by force of arms...is basically nil. Not only does Krugman completely misunderstand separation of powers, but he apparently lives in a fantasy world where the Republicans are only one step away from enforcing their rule over the state with the point of a bayonet.  News flash, the Republicans don’t need to do that, voters across the nation are rejecting Democrats in droves, which is why the Republican party is the strongest it's been since 1928. We are also the party that believes in rule of law, as opposed to the Democrats’ belief in rule-by-crapping-on-cop-cars.

Also since we have all the guns, if we were fractious, you would know. The Democrat base of latte sipping, tofu eating liberal SJWs would do diddly squat against any real opposition. Comrade Krugman is simply projecting, as socialists do love to come to power violently (Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, etc) and thus fear it in their opponents.  

Also, a gubernatorial election with massive voting irregularities that really should have forced a complete redo of the election, one where crates of Democratic ballots mysteriously turn up at the last moment and one that the Democrats did their very best to steal by any means fair or foul...that represents  the voter’s “clear choice?” An election that came down to a very small margin with so many irregularities that any competent State Board of Elections should have immediately ordered a recount in order to weed out all of the Democrats false ballots. Jill Stein did a great job of inadvertently showing the massive voter fraud that Democrats like to engage in. The Michigan recount showed so many voting irregularities that one would have to be as blinkered as...Paul Krugman to paper over it and pretend it doesn’t exist.

Also, the lengths to which Democrats will go in order to ensure that perverts can have access to children are truly amazing.

Combine this sort of thing with continuing efforts to disenfranchise or at least discourage voting by minority groups, and you have the potential making of a de facto one-party state: one that maintains the fiction of democracy, but has rigged the game so that the other side can never win.

A one party state like...California? One of the four states where the Democrats control all the branches of government. And just like all the other socialist led states, California is in deep fiscal trouble. Which they are taking bold steps to resolve by...cracking down on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom for law abiding citizens to own firearms. Bold initiatives indeed.

It's a true mystery why people continue to flee this...one party, freedom loving state. Must be because of...Russians. And Putin. And racists. The scapegoats for Democratic failures are as endless as...Hillary’s excuses for why she lost the election that was her RIGHT to win.

Also, California now has a situation where both of its Senate candidates are from the same party, as their new rules ensure that only Democrats get to run. Seems like that is mildly disenfranchising a good chunk of the electorate there but I'm sure Comrade Krugman would explain it away with some comment about...Republics falling due to Republican intransigence.

It's truly amazing the mental lengths that Krugman is going to in order to avoid confronting the fact that the reason why Republicans control so many states is because the electorate in a majority of states does not trust the pie in the sky benevolent totalitarianism that passes for the Democratic Party platform these days. That would also be why Donald Trump won the election fair and square, in spite of all the Democratic Party and their assorted flunkies in the media could do to push Hillarys doddering, corrupt corpse across the finish line.

If it wasn't for the Electoral College, Krugman’s bloviating about a one party state would happen as the major Democratic states like California would decide every election, disenfranchising the majority of the states and their residents. Krugman would say nothing about that  however, as one party rule is fine with liberals, so long as it's their party(Chicago, Detroit) or one ruled by a totalitarian dictator that they are sympathetic to, because they looked great on a t-shirt(Cuba, Venezuela).

Why is this happening? I’m not asking why white working-class voters support politicians whose policies will hurt them — I’ll be coming back to that issue in future columns. My question, instead, is why one party’s politicians and officials no longer seem to care about what we used to think were essential American values. And let’s be clear: This is a Republican story, not a case of “both sides do it.”

The “essential American values” that Krugman is referring to being what exactly? We know that he doesn't like free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to dissent, freedom to own firearms, and freedom to do what you want with your property. We know this because he supports Hillary Clinton. That alone takes out the entirety of the Constitution, so he is either referring to the constitution that exists in his private reality, or what is more likely, the constitution of a totalitarian nation that he likes. So probably the Chinese constitution. Krugman does love him some applied socialism.

“Both sides do it?” I'm sorry, which side is it again that hates America, hates western values, hates freedom of dissent, boos prayer, attacks Christians for exercising their freedom of religion, and produced a President who went around the world apologizing for America and saying that we are nothing special?

You are right Comrade Krugman, it's not a case of “both sides do it”, it's a case of “your party; the Democrats; does it” and the American people are getting very tired of it.

So what’s driving this story? I don’t think it’s truly ideological. Supposedly free-market politicians are already discovering that crony capitalism is fine as long as it involves the right cronies. It does have to do with class warfare — redistribution from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy is a consistent theme of all modern Republican policies.

Sure. And redistribution of wealth from wealthy foreign interests to the pockets of Hillary and Bill, by way of the Clinton Foundation is…:crickets:? Bueller?

The Republican party establishment is by no means guilt free, crony capitalism is an actual problem. With an actual definition and such, as opposed to “something that Comrade Krugman doesn’t like.” Still, the worst aspects of crony capitalism are better than the best aspects of the Communist utopia that Comrade Krugman would like to see replace America.

Comrade Krugman also here decides to exhume Marx from his tomb and raise a little class warfare fire and brimstone. Which turns out to be a small fart of a dying, discredited economic system that belongs on the trash heap of history. Much like Paul Krugman. Its funny to hear a man who lionizes Communist China, supports Communist Cuba, and never met a socialist idea that he didn't like, try to talk about the free market. Comrade Krugman supports the IRS stealing more and more money from the producers in an economy, taxes that trickle down to the middle class, squeezing it further and further.

And no, lowering taxes on everybody is not “redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy”, taxing the American people in order to give billions to wealthy liberals in the form of subsidies for boondoggles like Solyndra is redistribution. Krugman has the typical liberal disdain for anybody who wants to keep their money, viewing lowered taxes as somehow “stealing” from the government. Because all money actually belongs to the government, you just get to use it for as long as they let you, and in whatever quantities they allow you. You didn’t build that indeed.  

The problem of crony capitalism is something that needs to be addressed, by voting in people who will not support bailing out failed businesses, especially green ones that suck up taxpayer dollars and produce nothing. Sort of like how Obama gave a lot of wealthy people more money with his bailouts. But the excesses of crony capitalism are nothing compared to the realities of socialism.

But what directly drives the attack on democracy, I’d argue, is simple careerism on the part of people who are apparatchiks within a system insulated from outside pressures by gerrymandered districts, unshakable partisan loyalty, and lots and lots of plutocratic financial support.

Careerism such as Hillary’s career in politics, one gained solely by trading on her husband’s name? Or like former KKK member Robert Byrd of WV, who spent decades in congress getting half of the roads and bridges in West Virginia named after him? Partisan loyalty such as the way...a lot of people who voted for Obama switched and voted for Trump, thus giving him the election? Yes, clearly a problem. Also, I see your “plutocratic financial support” and raise you George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and the entirety of the wealthy Silicon Valley billionaires, practically all of whom give to liberal causes. And may I remind you that Trump won the White House with six hundred million dollars while Hillary lost it with 1.2 billion? Who exactly benefited from all that plutocratic financial support?

Additionally, career apparatchiks who run everything and answer to nobody and certainly no voter are a feature of socialist economies and other totalitarian edifices such as the EU and Cuba. I think Comrade Krugman is getting confused again. Granted, the American government has delegated far too much power to career apparatchiks, a trend that has only accelerated under...Democrats. Obama talked about “shovel ready” jobs, but a more apt simile would have been “pen ready” as the public sector was the only thing that grew appreciably during his tenure.

That is why the American people elected a man who promised to “drain the swamp” and is appointing people who at least seem ready to give it their best shot. One of my favorite things to watch this next year is going to be the soap opera of the EPA, a corrupt socialist edifice run by the aforementioned unelected apparatchiks. I look forward to seeing how Scott Pruitt runs it as he is a man whom I thoroughly respect, and a man who I sincerely hope trashes the EPA to the ground, and then pisses on the ashes.

One thing all of this makes clear is that the sickness of American politics didn’t begin with Donald Trump, any more than the sickness of the Roman Republic began with Caesar. The erosion of democratic foundations has been underway for decades, and there’s no guarantee that we will ever be able to recover.

Once again, we are a Republic, not a democracy. I know words are hard Comrade Krugman, but do try to keep up. And yes, the foundations of our American Republic have been gnawed away at for decades. The main culprit in all of this however, has been the Democrats and their socialist-lite platform Increasingly of course, there is little “lite” in the Democratic party platform, it's just socialism. Bernie Sanders did America a great service when he showed just how far to the left the Democrat party has gotten, with it open embrace of socialism and Communists such as Fidel Castro. The worst excesses of Republicans have been puny compared to the Democrats’ constant attacks on American freedom and sovereignty. Nixon erased 18 minutes of tape and was forced from office, Hillary deleted tens of thousands of email and was promoted for office. At least liberals are consistently inconsistent about standards.

Democratic presidents and administrations have left America mired in economic recession, deepened existing recessions with clumsy applications of Marxism, taken hope away from the American people, attacked the foundations of the Republic with any tool available, let American men die at Benghazi, welcomed into leadership men and women who hate America and its western traditions and made it very clear that as far as liberals are concerned America should fall into a third rate power. And if we make the mistake of listening to socialists like Comrade Krugman, we will end up a third rate power.  

But if there is any hope of redemption, it will have to begin with a clear recognition of how bad things are. American democracy is very much on the edge.

Thanks to socialist American haters like yourself, yes. And if we fight our way back, it will be no thanks to you and your pathetically ham handed attempts at political analysis. Go home Comrade Krugman.

You are drunk.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Partial Guide to Alt-Right Websites

Its an interesting time to be an American, especially if you are interested in politics and socioeconomics. The Internet has enabled many other-wise marginalized voices to be heard, and communities to sprout up around shared beliefs and goals.

One of the largest and fastest growing of these segments is the loose collection of websites known collectively as the "alt-right." While differing in many respects and exhibiting a tremendous degree of variety in their approach and tactics, the alt-right is largely unified around a respect for tradition and masculinity and is committed to largely libertarian ideals.  

There is much written that I do not endorse on these sites, but I do endorse a large portion of it and feel that Reality Hammer belongs in the same general political spectrum. Disagreements among intelligent men are nothing new, and are a very healthy thing, so long as these disagreements are carried on by rational adults who use the tools of logic to debate and disagre…

Fisking Sean Penn's Idiotic Editorial on Castro's Death

Today I was gifted with this astonishing (but not surprising) piece of idiocy from one of America’s foremost lovers of oppressive dictatorships and the men who run them, Comrade Sean Penn! He posted a rambling piece at the Daily Beast full of idiocy and whiney complaints about those MEANIES who were happy that Castro is dead. For good measure he doubled down about Castro: The Defender of The Poor People and the meanies who don’t like him. Those same MEANIES didn't vote for the Anointed Pantsuit either, and so Comrade Penn has a lot on his scrawny little libprog chest that he needs to get off. So let's have some fun!
My comments are in bold,Comrade Penn’s are initalics.
I was an American abroad, working overseas on this recent election night 2016. By midnight I was able to put myself to sleep, confidently, arrogantly, supremely certain that the election would go to Hillary Clinton, if not the Democrats at large.
Comrade Penn is kind enough to actually admit a by-now very evident t…

(Part 3): SJWs Have Always Lied. A Fisking of Soviet Civilization(1952) by Corliss Lamont

Continuing on with this massive fisking of Corliss Lamont’s 1952 book on the Soviet Union, this week’s installment is going to focus on Comrade Lamont’s explanation as to why Communism is a phenomenal system to live under and is totally different from fascism, which sucks to live under. It's a very nuanced interpretation of the two socialist philosophies and one that will require not only all of Comrade Lamont’s intellectual brainpower but also the complete ignorance and credulity of the reader. Let’s see how he does.

On Page 228, Comrade Lamont identifies ten “fundamental differences” between Soviet socialism and fascism. This is on the second page of the chapter and represents his efforts to set the tone for the remainder of the chapter. Essentially, if he can get the big whoppers swallowed first, the remaining smaller ones will go down easier. So let's take a look at the ten differences that Lamont claims separate the evils of totalitarian fascist socialism from the saintly …