Tag Archives: liberalism

Never Apologize to Liberals

It’s been two months since Tim Urban updated Wait But Why, his last post being a mea culpa of sorts for not being sufficiently aware of his ‘white male privilege’. Either he’s working on another epic post or he’s still shell-shocked from the backlash wrought by his last two posts.

From the comments of Tim’s November 9th ‘It’s Going to Be Okay’ post, on the morning of Trump’s win:

He was right…there were incidents of racism and violence following Trump’s win–against white Trump supporters perpetrated by blacks. Of course, we can’t let such details get in the way of a narrative that Trump voters are literally the KKK.

But anyway, Tim’s biggest mistake was believing that liberals would respond to facts, logic, and reason–but that’s not how far-left liberalism works–it never has and never will. Far-left liberals care about winning and ideological purity, above all else. Like a cancer, virus, zerglings, or termites, they are ruthless and single-minded and will stop at nothing in their pursuit of power and control, destroying their host in the process if need be. You think you are in control, but one wrong move and it’s over, like a tiger turning against his hapless trainer.

SJWs swarming a comments section

Cancer dies when it’s deprived of glucose. Likewise, the way you defeat SJW-liberalism is to starve it of the attention and chaos it seeks–ignore their pleads for you to check your privilege. They want your contrition–never capitulate and give it to them. First, it won’t work: it’s too late. The scarlet letter is irrevocable. Second, by caving in, you’re only emboldening them. Third, you’re not alone: the rest of the internet (such as Reddit and 4chan), including even other liberals (as the example above shows, being a liberal does NOT make one immune to the SJW piety mob–not by any stretch of the imagination), hate the SJW-left, so you have many allies that you can turn to for support. Fourth, of course, is that being a white heterosexual male is nothing to apologize about.

Understanding the far-left

An imgur gallery of statistics that show how society is improving went viral.

Far-left liberalism, in a nutshell, is the belief that man – particularly white, heterosexual men – are intrinsically corrupt [1] (similar to the concept of original sin) and that it’s the job of the state ‘purify’ man, as well as to enforce equal outcomes and punish/suppress exceptionalism and talent (egalitarianism [2]). As I explain here, here, and here, optimistic statistics such as how crime is declining is an affront to the left’s self-appointed role to ‘fix’ society, because if society is peaceful and prosperous, it’s less inclined to need the left’s ‘help’. The left thrives on chaos but also foments it, too, by pitting the rich against the poor, makers against takers, Whites against Blacks, and so on. And from the rubble and chaos, the left seeks to ‘rebuild’ society in their image. But if society isn’t collapsing, the left can’t rebuilt it, and this makes the left very mad. And also, entire narratives, such as the existence of man-made goal warming that threatens humanity, depend on the willingness and credulity of the general public to not reject this collective guilt and burden foisted on them by the far-left, similar to the concept of ‘original sin’, where all men are born sinners and have to redeem themselves through repentance.

The left are desirous for power, with liberalism and the state the national ‘god and religion’. In the absence of turmoil and suffering, acquiring this power is much harder for the left. The left is still powerful in terms of controlling certain national narratives and institutions, but their ambitions are so much bigger than isolated issues such such gay marriage and global warming may suggest, because it’s total control they seek under the pretense of ‘free speech’ and ‘liberty’, and those small issues are just skirmishes in a far bigger war.

Furthermore, the sensationalist liberal media manipulates data and statistics to spread fear, in order to boost advertising dollars. By only reporting bad news, one is inclined to believe that everything is bad, when in actuality the media is just deliberately choosing the bad stories and ignoring the good ones. One may not realize that the number of homicides and burglaries relative to the total US population has fallen in recent decades, because crime gets a lot of media coverage, and the media can affect public perceptions of crime or the health of the economy by the stories they choose to report or ignore.

[1] This would seem to contradict the left’s belief in tabula rasa. The far-left tends to hold absolutist and conflicting views on this – that everyone is either a blank slate for certain traits, or born corrupted by ingrained prejudices. This is similar to the left believing that sexual orientation is a fixed trait but intelligence and susceptibility/propensity to crime isn’t. A second explanation is that the left believes everyone is born a blank slate and are later corrupted by environmental factors such as racism, and that it’s the role of the state to ‘program’ people to be politically correct. The existence of individual cognitive exceptionalism is not a failing of tabula rasa but rather attributable ‘unfair’ environmental advantages bestowed upon said individuals, and that state intervention, at any cost, is needed in the futile effort to close an achievement gap that is actually an IQ gap.

[2] Egalitarianism, from Wikipedia (from French égal, meaning “equal”)—or equalitarianism[1][2]—is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people.[3] Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[4] According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term has two distinct definitions in modern English:[5] either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights;[6] or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people, economic egalitarianism, or the decentralization of power. Some sources define egalitarianism as the point of view that equality reflects the natural state of humanity.[7][8][9]

For the far-left, by ‘egalitarianism’ they mean equal outcomes instead of equal opportunities. With the exception of ‘congenital racism’, the far-left rejects the idea anyone is intrinsically better than anyone else. And individual differences in socioeconomic outcomes are a collective failing of society, not the individual. Far-left liberalism always shifts the burden from the individual to society. The left champions civil rights provided no one is able to get too far ahead of anyone else, and rights such as private property don’t count. Inequality is blamed on imagined structural racism, unfair advantages, or oppression, not differences in biology or work ethic. The far-left tends to blame environment for inequality, because biological differences, such as IQ, that may engender inequality less tractable to state intervention. Stephen Jay Gould (The Mismeasure of Man) and Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs, and Steel), who were inspired by the progenitor of cultural relativism, Franz Boas, are major proponents of this view. The media by corroborating with academia are complicit in pushing what is essentially cultural Marxism wrapped in flimsy science.

The rise of ‘concern liberalism’ and the decline of ‘identity liberalism’

As more evidence of how the far-left is losing the war of words and ideas, many people, including those identify as the ‘left’, are rejecting how the liberal media caricatures its targets. We’re not seeing an anti-left or anti-right backslash but, since 2013, rather a backlash against ‘low information’ discourse, but it just so happens the liberal media may be the most susceptible to falling into the trap of reductionism, straw-manning, and oversimplification that constitutes ‘low information’.

Emotive and polarizing forms of liberalism have ceded to ‘concern liberalism’ whereby liberals now want to better understand their ideological opponents, going so far as to empathize or converse with them, not simply attack, dismiss, or ridicule them as was common during the ‘Bush Era’. I see it all the time…sensible liberals criticizing the New York Times in how it unfairly caricatures Trump supporters as one-dimensional bigots, whereas maybe a decade ago liberals didn’t speak up when the same paper (and its commenters) denigrated Bush and Romney voters, which is a welcome development and further evidence of the post-2013 anti-SJW backlash, that this blog has documented. For example, since 2015, there have been hundreds of articles by left-leaning publications in an effort to try to understand the alt-right instead of simply dismiss it. A recent example is an article in the Huffington Post My Journey to the Center of the At right. Or articles by Vox.com about the alt-right and NRx (neoreaction).

Other examples include social media such as Reddit, where liberals are holding other members of their ‘tribe’ accountable, unlike as recently as a decade ago when there was more unanimity. In response to the New York Times article Reddit and the God Emperor of the Internet, here are two highly up-voted comments of how the New York Times, as well as the rest of liberal establishment, has been blaming everyone but themselves for losing, and how attacking the alt-right has backfired:

The liberal media prides itself on being impartial and ‘open minded’ but such open-mindedness and impartiality doesn’t apply to their coverage of Trump and his supporters, in which the left trots out the same tropes and generalizations of ‘racism’ without considering the subtleties, such as how Trump represents a bottom-up approach to politics rather than a top-down one. Cries of ‘racism’ are ways to shut down debate, not foster conversation and understanding.

In the wake of Clinton’s loss, the pundit-left did some soul searching, in a well-received, highly viral piece The End of Identity Liberalism, that argues how liberalism cannot be about dividing people (such as by class, gender, or race) but by uniting them, finding similarities and ‘common ground’ (such a common yearning for freedom). Whites are people, too, who, like everyone else, have aspirations, concerns, and fears. Either bring them into the conversation, as with other groups, or exclude everyone equally. You cannot win an election by elevating some groups but disparaging or excluding others:

But when it came to life at home, she tended on the campaign trail to lose that large vision and slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop. This was a strategic mistake. If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them. If you don’t, those left out will notice and feel excluded.

A retort is that Trump also ran a campaign of identity politics, but Trump never elevated any specific group. It may have been implied that he was appealing to Whites, but unlike Hillary, he didn’t make his preferences and pandering so explicitly obvious, as Hillary did with women and Hispanics.

People who post on Reddit seem to grasp this, which is why Identity, as well as the comments in the screenshot above, got so many up-votes and was shared thousands of times, but, by in large, the liberal media is still late to catch on, blaming racism or fraud for Clinton’s loss. You didn’t lose because of a cartoon frog, liberals; you lost because your message failed to resonate with voters; because you thought that the self-congratulatory affirmations that work for members of your own ‘tribe’ would somehow transfer to others, and it didn’t; because you thought that everyone would share or indulge in the same manufactured outrage, divisiveness, and sanctimoniousness that to you, the left, seemed self-evident but to others was repulsive. But also, the failure of the left to grasp how minorities can support Trump, because maybe they are tired of being pandered to. The left’s ‘conversations’ about race are just appeals to simplistic archetypes that fit into convenient political slots, stereotypes, or roles, as pawns for the lefts acquisition of power.

In an era of media sensationalism and politically biased misconstructions, Reddit and 4chan are solaces of rationalism where young people go for the unvarnished truth, while the old hacks over at the New York Times keep patting each other on the backs and wondering why their politicians are losing or why readership is down. Both the ‘rational left’ and the ‘rational right’ understand that appealing to the echo chamber of ‘low information’, where trite and divisive thinking reverberates, only hurts their causes. Instead of preaching to the choir, you have to preach to your harshest critics, and then not misconstrue their views but rather afford them the same intellectual courtesy that you give your own ‘tribe’.

Why the left is losing, as summarized by a Reddit post

If the left wants to know why they are losing, they need look no further than sites like Reddit and 4chan, as the brilliant Reddit post bellow demonstrates why the far-left is so unpopular right now, and why if the left persists in their ways they will continue to lose both elections and the hearts and minds of millennials:

The post was heavily up-voted, indicating considerable agreement. It’s also worth noting that the sub is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a ‘right-wing’ sub, rather one that is neutral or slightly left-leaning such as /r/news.

The left sets the boundaries of ‘acceptable discourse’ and anyone who deviates from them is labeled a racist (a word that has been diluted to such an extent that it could apply to everyone), or worse, possibly loses their career, job, or livelihood. No one is safe, including other liberals, who also find themselves at the mercy of the SJW-left and their inquisition. The left will turn on each other as readily as they go after the ‘right’. The far-left also believes in ‘transitive guilt’, meaning, or example, that if someone supports the alt-right, and David Duke supports the alt-right, then that person also supports David Duke and thus endorses everything David Duke believes in, too.

This blog, between 2014 and 2015, was correct in predicting how Reddit and 4chan were leading the post-2013 SJW-backlash, that ultimately culminated in Trump winning and Hillary losing. The left (and by ‘left’, I mean the SJW-left, not classical liberals) has yet to fully digest just how unpopular their ideology is right now, as if their YouTube videos (such as the Ghostbusters remake trailer, one of the most poorly-received videos on Youtube ever, or Anita Sarkasian’s videos) being inundated with down-votes and negative comments isn’t evidence enough. But they can’t reform, because their ideology is in many ways a religion (or as some have noted, a substitute for the religion they were deprived of growing up), and because they have so much intellectually and spiritually invested in it, that to recant would be a repudiation of their purpose and existence. Essentially, the far-left are victims of the sunk-cost fallacy: the more someone invests in something, the harder it is to abandon it.

Debunking Libertarian-Socialist Nonsense

It takes a concerted effort and a persistent willingness to suspend disbelief to be a life-long libertarian-socialist (and its closely-related Marxist variants). Most people outgrow it by their late 20′s upon learning that Marxism is far more violent, ruthless, and just all-around awful than the capitalism it is supposed to replace.

Libertarian-socialism is predicated on imagined oppression of workers by a so-called ‘capitalist elite’, and that workers should ‘free’ themselves from this oppression to control the production and spread the fruits of labor more equally. ‘Libertarian’ is not used in the American sense of the word, but refers to the lesser-known European definition. That’s pretty much the entire 3,000+ word Wikipedia summary, condensed into a few sentences. But anyway, libertarian-socialist arguments are easy to refute through simple common sense and empirical evidence.

Here is one such, easily refuted argument alleging ‘worker exploitation’:

This implies profit margins of over 900%! But then why are so many companies unprofitable, or why retail companies have profits margins between 3-5%? Or why the average S&P 500 company has profit margins between 10-20%. Public companies have to report their operations through public disclosures (forms 10-Q, 10-K), and there is no evidence any public companies are producing 900% profits…even the most profitable handful of public companies only have operating margins around 30-40%. If exploiting workers is so profitable, why were so many jobs lost in 2008? Why do so many companies fail every year and have to terminate all their employees? Hmmmm? When a company fails, employees always get paid first and the common shareholders, upon liquidation, last. Maybe workers have a better deal than commonly believed. The reality is, although a company may generate $200/hour in value from an employee it pays $20/hour, most of the remaining $180 goes back into the company to keep the entire operation running. If the operation fails, the employee loses his job and thus gets $0/hour. Some of that $180 goes into – gasp! – profit, but without profit there is no incentive to create or invest in businesses.

As I explain in Is Going to Work Really So Bad? Jobbers vs. Self-Actualizers in response to a similar argument by James Altucher, in giving up the $180/hour you gain access to the company’s resources: clients, infrastructure, network, and office. An entrepreneur has to provide all of those things himself, but all an employee has to do is show up and perform his assigned job. Entrepreneurship has a very high rate of failure, and most solo-endeavors make very little money (much less than minimum wage), an example being self-publishing, as I describe in Pencil Pushers and The Miracle of Capitalism. Most people, if left to their own devices to make money, would starve to death…which is what happened China and Russia during communism, if history serves me correct. And then there are the empty food shelves of Venezuela, another country that decided it was ‘too good’ for capitalism. With the workers liberated, they can enjoy their non-existent provisions and control of the means of the non-existent production.

Robert Shiller…Wrong About Real Estate

Whether it’s Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Daniel Kahneman, or Obama (the Nobel committee took a huge dent in credibility after that), even Nobel laureates are not beyond reproach. Now it’s Robert Shiller, another liberal Noble Prize recipient who has been wrong about wealth inequality and other matters, writing in the New York Times: Why Land and Homes Actually Tend to Be Disappointing Investments.

As to be expected, this is a vague article with sparse evidence and is easily refuted.

Here is the crux of Shiller’s argument, to save you the effort of having to read through hundreds of words of filler, ‘For home prices, a good part of the answer comes from supply and demand. As prices rise, companies build more houses and the supply floods the market, keeping prices down.’

Hmmm…let’s see….Bay Area real estate has doubled since 2011, and has outpaced the S&P 500, even going back 30 years. So I guess all those people should feel like fools.

Although prices fell briefly in 2006-08 before rocketing higher in 2011-2015, there are many factors that bode well for Silicon Valley real estate: scarcity, huge demand by rich foreigners, private equity, and millionaire techies, and floods of capital – both cognitive and financial – into the region.

As they say, ‘location location location’ , which Shiller ignores, in favor of the quote that fits his thesis, ‘they can’t make more land’. A lot of people buy land or property in the hope of renting it and or developing it, neither of which are accounted for by Shiller’s index. It’s not like buyers are just throwing darts at a map.

Shiller (what an appropriate name because he shills for the left) also ignores the role of leverage. If someone buyers a home worth $100k, putting $30k down, and the price rises by 10%, he makes $10k or about 33% off his initial $30K – a very good return. I’m ignoring the interest on the mortgage for this example, but leverage is how people get rich (and sometimes ruined) with real estate. Also, there are more options for homeowners who use leverage vs. stock traders who use leverage and are at the mercy of the awful brokers. For mortgages, payments can be deferred.

How about renting? Home ownership is about creating wealth for yourself instead of making the landlord rich. There are many millennials who are living with their parents instead of pissing away money every month for rent, and then using the saved money from their job to buy a home, achieving financial independence. With renting, you’re never are able to achieve independence, since you’re constantly draining money, and the rate of rent, especially since 2011, for most locations has far, far exceeded inflation. Over the long run (>5 years), the data suggests buying is better than renting

So tired of the generalizations and lazy thinking that passes for journalism these days, and even NYT writers and Nobel Prize laureates are not immune.

Some on the left argue that home prices are too high and that there is a conspiracy to keep prices too high, ignoring the role of supply and demand and other contravening evidence, just like how the left wants to believe police are systematically targeting blacks, that wealth inequality is bad for the economy, or that institutional racism is to blame for certain groups falling behind.

Some favor a ‘land value tax‘ (LVT), because real estate speculation encourages rent seeking activities rather than other, more productive investments. The tax, in theory, reduces the speculative element in land pricing, thereby leaving more money for productive capital investment:

The owner of a vacant lot in a thriving city must still pay a tax and would rationally perceive the property as a financial liability, encouraging him/her to put the land to use in order to cover the tax. LVT removes financial incentives to hold unused land solely for price appreciation, making more land available for productive uses. Land value tax creates an incentive to convert these sites to more intensive private uses or into public purposes.

There are several problems with the LVT:

Proponents of LVT argue that there are better investments than real estate, because real estate is an ‘unproductive’ use of capital. If entrepreneurship is so productive, why is the failure rate so high? Entrepreneurship has a 90-95% chance of failure…Bay Area homes have doubled since 2011…the choice seems obvious to me. It’s rational to not gamble on entrepreneurship.

Renting and building is often fraught with difficulties and expenses such as building and ordinance codes, dealing with potential disability and discrimination lawsuits, damage to property by renters, insurance, cost of upkeep and repair, and processing evictions. If landlords, already burdened by costs and regulation, cannot collect on the underling appreciation of the land, there may be no incentive to offer housing. Also, businesses often lease real estate. A LVT would probably cause a major supply shortages and distribution as landlords close shop and renters, both tenets and businesses, are forced to pay higher prices or have nowhere to go. This hurts the very people that the left wants to helps.

Also, where is the incentive to invest in urban development if there is no return. If private equity wants to buy a bunch of blighted homes in a bad neighborhood and improve them, why should these investors not profit from the appreciation in land value?

It’s theft, not much different than the Soviet Decree issued between 1917 and 1924 as a consequence of the October Revolution, as private property (businesses, bank accounts, land) was sized and nationalized. Homes owners would lose significant equity from a LVT.

Liberal Smugness, or Something Else

The smug style in American liberalism

Beginning in the middle of the 20th century, the working class, once the core of the coalition, began abandoning the Democratic Party. In 1948, in the immediate wake of Franklin Roosevelt, 66 percent of manual laborers voted for Democrats, along with 60 percent of farmers. In 1964, it was 55 percent of working-class voters. By 1980, it was 35 percent.

This mirrors the decline of union membership, more so than Americans becoming less liberal. As industrial and unionized labor falls, now it’s middle/lower-income service sector workers filling the ranks of the ‘left’.

But is liberalism really that ‘smug’. If smug is synonymous with elitist, one can argue Sander’s campaign is the antithesis of elitism and is in fact very inclusive and populist, provided you’re not a banker. Despite supposed ties to Wall St., even Hillary’s campaign is pretty inclusive in her pandering to various minority groups and significant minority support (a common criticism of Sanders is that he failed to ‘win over’ minorities).

So what type of liberalism is smug? Or does smugness cross political lines? Is it liberalism, or something else?

It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really — but by the failure of half the country to know what’s good for them.

Hmmm… but as an example of elitism on the ‘right’, neoconservatives are also anti-populist and prescriptivist – people should summit to TSA screenings, for the good of national security; people should support tax cuts for high-income earners, for the good of the economy. And for the ‘left’ – people should signup for Obamacare, for or the ‘good’ of public healthcare; people should stop buying guns, for the ‘good’ of public safety.

So perhaps smugness is just another world for ‘prescriptivism’, and is related to anti-democracy – the notion that the masses are incapable rational judgment and decision making and should acquiesce to ‘experts’.

Maybe there is a hybrid ideology that combines neoconservative and neoliberal prescriptivism (people should support free trade, for the good of the economy) with the ethos personal responsibility and individualism (‘culture of self’) that is found in the ‘right’ and various libertarian ideologies (if people fail, it’s because they are either dumb and or lazy), that could be considered smug and elitist.

The Physics Police

This article went viral: Dear Dr B: Why not string theory?

This article is a casebook example of the the modus operandi of liberalism, which is to try to ‘save’ people from perceived evils as determined by said liberal, whether it be big corporations, ‘greedy’ capitalists, ‘predatory’ lenders, genetically modified food, ‘institutional racism’ (a favorite), an so on. Or how liberals try to intervene in the marketplace, because they think they know what is ‘best’.

In this article, it’s about ‘saving’ scientists from wasting time on string theory, because Sabine Hossenfelder has apparently taken it upon herself to be the arbiter of what is worthwhile or not, for the ‘good’ of the physics community.

Because we might be wasting time and money and, ultimately, risk that progress stalls entirely.

Some days I side with Polchinski and Gross and don’t think it makes that much of a difference. It really is an interesting topic and it’s promising. On other days I think we’ve wasted 30 years studying bizarre aspects of a theory that doesn’t bring us any closer to understanding quantum gravity, and it’s nothing but an empty bubble of disappointed expectations. Most days I have to admit I just don’t know.

New theories take not just decades, but centuries to develop. There was at least a three-hundred year gap between the development of Newtonian gravity and general relativity. Much of string theory is only a couple decades old. If physicists and mathematicians decide that string theory is untenable, they will gradually abandon it, similar to how in capitalism products become obsoleted in favor of newer, better ones. There is no need for someone to determine which theories are worth pursuing or or not; the ‘marketplace’ of ideas does that automatically, gradually nudging the natural progression of research towards better ideas as old ones are discarded or modified. For example, 120 years ago aether theories were conjectured the propagation of light and gravitation, but these theories were later were supplanted by special relativity.

How the left spreads misinformation, fear, and bad advice to ‘save/protect’ people

In their war on the ownership society, the left wants people to rent instead of owning homes. Because so much wealth is held in real estate, one way for the left to accomplish their goal of making society poorer is to get people out of homes and into rentals by spreading misinformation about real estate either being a scam and or a bubble. Yet at the same time, the left also wants deadbeats to keep their homes. People who can afford to buy a home should never own one, but those who can’t should never be evicted, according to the left’s ‘logic’. It’s contradictory, but liberalism is a mental disorder.

Same goes for liberals who call traditional publishing evil and exploitative, oblivious or ignoring the fact that traditional book publishing houses are flooded with manuscripts, so apparently, I guess, despite thousands and thousands of articles slamming traditional publishing, word still hasn’t gotten out about how ‘evil’ traditional publishers are. Just another example of the paternalist left acting like they know what is best for everyone else, giving bad advice to ‘save’ people. According to the left, it’s not your fault your precious manuscript was rejected, it’s those greedy corporations and rich people who are to blame.

The average Amazon self-publisher makes a couple hundred dollars a year and that doesn’t include costs such as covers and editing, whereas 6-figure or 7-figure book publishing deals are not all that uncommon. For example, memory champion Joshua Foer received a jaw-dropping $1.3 million advance from Penguin to write his critically acclaimed debut book Moonwalking with Einstein. Poor guy. But of course, we can’t let obvious counter-examples stand in the way of the well-worn leftist narratives that ‘traditional publishing is dead’, ‘traditional pubishing gatekeepers are suppressing talent’, or ‘traditional publishing exploits authors’.

Bloggers like Mike, Aaron, Vox, and James are successful with self-publishing because they already have huge audiences. They wrote books only after becoming well-known through blogging and other mediums; they didn’t self-publish to build the audience – the audience was already there. Traditional publishing, on the other hand, puts the books in front of people’s eyes at the bookstores and on Amazon through professional promotions, which helps authors who have the talent to write quality work but have little or no pre-established audience. The audience is what matters – no audience, no sales. Period. The left doesn’t understand this fundamental rule.

Or the left spreading FUD about stocks being a bubble or about the fed inflating the market – nevermind that companies like Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple, which have nothing to do with the fed, keep posting blow-out earnings year after year. The welfare left thinks that the fed was evil to bailout Wall St. and should have just let everything crash and burn to save people from ‘moral hazard’. The only conspiracy is not from the fed or the government, but from the libs who are making you poor by making you sell your stocks too soon or piss money every month to the landlord, all under the pretense of trying protect people from imagined fears. Fear of publishing houses, fear of stock market bubbles, fear of the fed, fear of China, fear of rich people, fear of housing…and the list goes on and on.

Related: Is James Altucher Right About Never Buying a Home?

China and The Liberal War on Success

Why does the crisis-seeking left want the economy of China to fail? Simple, because:

In the late 70′s, China rejected Maoism and the Cultural Revolution, becoming a ‘Communism in name only’ type country, allowing for the proliferation of thousands of successful companies, eventually becoming the second largest economy in the world, with many billionaires and a growing middle class. The post-70′s Chinese economic success story kicks dirt on the left’s beliefs that redistribution and egalitarianism is better than the meritocracy and the free market – it’s not. So if China’s economy fails, it will ‘vindicate’ the left, although a brief setback is hardly a repudiation of decades of capitalism success.

Second, Chinese millionaires & billionaires are buying up expensive Bay Area real estate and their children are attending America’s most prestigious colleges, and this makes the left envious and mad. The left hates the sight of these successful, ambitious people running circles around them.

The left couldn’t care less about human rights violations committed by Islamic fundamentalists, but they get in all worked up over Apple’s China factory working conditions.

So right now, China slightly debased their currency, and the SSE Composite Index, which is up over 100% between 2014-2015, gave back some of those gains, and now the left is elated, after over a decade of waiting and thousands of failed predictions, that the long-awaited Chinese collapse is here. Finally, they the liberal doom and gloomers, who pretend to be pro-minority except for the Chinese, will be right, or so they hope. But all too often ,as we’ve seen in the past with all the other failed predictions since 2009 about bear markets and recessions, that this Chinese setback will only be that – a setback, not a crisis.

Again, you have to have to put things in perspective, which is a main focus of this blog – separating reality from the hype of the useless, ad-powered media. The SSE Composite Index, the main stock index of China, gained a mind-blowing 150% from July 2014 to June 2015, a period where pretty much every other major stock market in the world was flat. Anyone who follows stocks knows that such large, uninterrupted gain are unsustainable, regardless of fundamentals. Pullbacks, especially after such a big move, are inevitable, and are not in any way proof of underlying economic weakness. In 1987, after a huge bull market that began in 1982, the S&P 500 crashed 30% in a single week, giving back some of its post-1982 gains; did that mean the US economic & stock market boom was over? Hardly, it was just in the 4th inning or so, and the boom would continue up until the late 90′s. What we see is a confirmation bias by the media to look for any shred of evidence, however small, to validate their China-is-doomed narrative. For all the pundits who say that the China stock market bubble has popped, what will happen if it makes a new high – which is actually not that far away – would that invalidate your entire thesis, and it’s back to the drawing board again? The liberals that pride themselves on fact-checking and who lambaste Fox News for supposedly being inaccurate, apparently don’t apply those same high standards in their coverage of China or the police. To the left, ‘Black Lives Matter’ can do no wrong, and the police are always wrong.

But what about other countries? The left isn’t predicting doom and gloom for Brazil, Canada, Australia, Turkey, or Venezuela, all of which are in much worse economic shape than China. All the oil exporters are being rattled by plunging oil prices. It’s part of the liberal tendency to always favor the underdog, whether it’s global economies or special education funding taking precedence over gifted education.

Ultimately, whether it’s China, IQ, the wealthy, web 2.0, or successful companies like Apple, Uber, Walmart, Starbucks, Amazon, or Facebook – just like you cannot have a picnic without the ants, you cannot have success without the left attacking it.