South on the Sphere

On Tuesday of this week, James O’Keefe, with Project Veritas, released a recording of a Bernie Sanders campaign Iowa field organizer, Kyle Jurek. The paid employee may or may not directly reflect Sanders’ opinions, but he does reveal pretty clearly how tyrannists think.

And it gives us an opportunity to point out how much more useful the Spherical Model is to this “if you’re not a socialist who believes everything I believe, you must be a Nazi” model.

I’m transcribing a fair amount of the video, with profanity “bleeped,” and linking (here) so you can watch the whole two-minute video. But be warned, the language does not qualify as civilized. 

screen shot from here

Q: So, if Trump gets reelected, what...?

KJ: F*-ing cities burn.

Q: Do you even think that some of these, like, MAGA people could even be re-educated?

KJ: [laughter] I mean, we got to try. I mean, so, like, in Nazi Germany, after the fall of the Nazi Party, there was a s*-ton of the populous that was f*-ing nazified. And, like, Germany had to spend billions of dollars re-educating the f*-ing people to not be Nazis. Like, we’re probably going to have to do the same f*-ing thing here. That’s kind of what Bernie’s whole f*-ing like, “Hey, free education for everybody.” Because we’re going to have to teach you not to be a f*-ing Nazi.

There’s a reason Joseph Stalin had gulags, right? And, actually, gulags were a lot better than, like, what, like, the CIA has told us that they were. Like, people were actually paid a living wage in gulags. They had conjugal visits in gulags. Gulags were actually meant for, like, re-education.

The greatest way to break a billionaire of their, like, privilege, and their idea that they’re superior? Go and break rocks for 12 hours a day. You’re now a working-class person, and you’re going to f*-ing learn what that means, right?

Q: If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination or it goes to a second round at the DNC Convention…

KJ: F*-ing Milwaukee will burn.

It’ll start in Milwaukee, and when they f*-ing—and when the police push back on that, other cities will just f*-ing [explosion sound].

And if your speech is calling for the elimination of people based on race or gender or religious, like, for whatever reason, like, things that people can’t change, then you should expect a f*-ing violent reaction. And you deserve a violent reaction.

Be ready to be in Milwaukee for the DNC convention. We’re gonna make 1978 [1968] look like a f*-ing girl scout f*-ing cookout. The cops are gonna be the ones that are gonna be f*-ing beaten in Milwaukee.

screen shot from here

As of this morning, this guy is still a paid employee of the Bernie Sanders campaign, which means the Sanders Campaign does not categorically disavow his statements.

Much of the attention has been on the apparent call for violence. Yes, that’s bad. But I’m going to look at the worldview this guy has. It’s a tyrannist worldview. He believes that, by his own definition, he is in the right, so you need to either go along with him or be coerced to go along with him.

He’s seeing it as a difference between correct (him) and Nazi (everyone else). And he’s also using the rather typical left-right model of political ideas. He’s left—which he defines as moral—and anything “right” of him is therefore immoral right-wing extremist, or Nazi.

That is wrong in so many ways. All ways. The Spherical Model can help straighten this out.

Instead of a left-right line spectrum, the Spherical Model uses a three-dimensional view. Political ideas have polar opposites. Not leftist/rightist. Not communist/fascist. Instead it’s tyranny/freedom. We can put them on a sphere, with tyranny at the south pole and freedom at the north pole.

The Political Sphere of the Spherical Model

The lateral direction, east or west, is mostly neutral, depending on what level an issue belongs to: from local as furthest west, to state, region, nation, continent, to global as furthest east. It’s only a negative if too high a level tries to take control of what should be handled more locally, because that leads to lack of freedom.

The southern hemisphere can be divided, then, into chaotic tyranny in the west and statist tyranny in the east. Other differences in the southern hemisphere have to do with depth into tyranny—the control of other people. The more coercion, the further south, regardless of whether the coercion is done more locally or from a central government.

This guy, Kyle Jurek, is very deep south on the sphere. How do we know? There’s enough in this short video to tell.

He’s paid by the Bernie Sanders campaign. Bernie is an avowed socialist, who happily spent his honeymoon in the old Soviet Union and praised it. Socialism is far south on the Sphere. Examples: USSR, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Communist China, Cuba, Venezuela, and everywhere else communism/socialism has been imposed. Bernie puts the word “democratic” in front of socialism to make it seem somehow different or better than the real-life examples. But, remember, Hitler was duly elected in Nazi Germany, where Nazi meant the national German socialist party. Fascism is a flavor of tyranny not essentially different from any other totalitarian statist tyranny.

Jurek is very much into coercion. Re-education is—and has been used historically to mean—imprisonment, brainwashing, and physical and mental force to cow people into submissive behavior that looks like it does not disagree and fears expressing a dissenting thought. He says that’s what Bernie means by “free education for all.” Digest that.

image found here

Jurek downplays actual historical attempts at re-education—i.e., forced submission to the will of the tyranny—such as the gulags of Stalin, which he says were not so bad. He omits the fact that people were rounded up and imprisoned there without due process, without breaking actual laws. He brushes off the horrors that took place there, claiming that’s all simply CIA propaganda that we fell for, ignoring actual stories of people imprisoned in them, such as Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago.  Eighteen million people (far more than the billionaires, or even millionaires) were imprisoned in them, and 1.6 million died directly from their imprisonment. But people in gulags shouldn’t feel bad because, he says, they were “paid a living wage”—something they had been earning before their freedom was taken. And the government was generous enough to offer them conjugal visits—but would not permit them live their lives with spouse and family.

He repeats actual Bernie talking points—that equality is the goal, so money earned by successful people should be confiscated and given to unsuccessful people. He embellishes that idea with the fantasy of sticking-it-to-the-rich-guy by forcing him to break rocks for twelve hours a day, to take away his “privilege” and “sense of superiority”—an evil he is attributing to the person simply for having more money than others. Make that guy into a working-class man—because the assumption is that having money means the guy didn’t work for it.

This isn’t actually different from the approach of every other socialist takeover in history.

Fascism, Socialism, and Communism
are overlapping forms of tyranny.

There’s an interesting thing about being very deep south on the sphere: east and west are very close. So when he suggests using violence—a chaotic tyranny approach—that’s natural. It’s what revolutionary tyrants do. They create so much chaos, so much insecurity, that the populous will be desperate for stability and safety, and then the tyrants step in and say, “Let us solve that for you. All you have to do is give up your freedom and do everything we say.”

He’ll say he’s fighting for the underdog, because he says all the bad comes down on you only if “your speech is calling for the elimination of people based on race or gender or religio[n].” But here’s what I can guarantee you: any speech that disagrees with him is what he labels “calling for the elimination of people.” He lies about your hatred, while he despises you and works for your demise—comforting himself that you deserve the violence.

Socialism has never been about compassion for the downtrodden. It has always been about power.

In a country that was founded on principles that would prevent power-mongering—as much as adhering to a document could do—we need to make sure that people who believe what this Bernie Sanders campaign spokesperson believes never get anywhere near the reins of power. Their power can only lead to our rights—and actual people—being trampled.

And while this guy speaks pretty radically, and even Bernie wouldn’t say all of it out loud, I’d say every single one of the Democrat candidates for president is so used to thinking only as a southern hemisphere tyrannist that they don’t even know there’s a northern hemisphere where we find freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

Another Anniversary

balloon image found here

I started the Spherical Model blog on March 4, 2011, so it’s now eight years old. Usually on an anniversary day, I recap some of what the Spherical Model is, or maybe offer some best-of collections. But I want to put that off for a couple of weeks, because I’m also about to hit the mile marker of 1000 posts.

In the first year and a half I wrote five times a week. Posts were shorter, but that meant there were frequent multiple-part posts. For the last several years I’ve been posting twice a week, usually Monday and Thursday. I tend to do longer posts now (sorry). I end up putting out about the same number of words per week. That adds up over time. For however many posts you’ve read, I thank you.

Today I’d like to take a second look at a chart I created for a piece called “North and South Comparison,” in August 2014, and handle the examples piece by piece. The original comparisons are in blue; today’s added commentary is in the white space beneath each comparison.

Southern Hemisphere Version	Northern Hemisphere Version
Everyone deserves equality, so the government forcibly takes from those who have earned more than they need and gives to those who earn very little.	Everyone deserves equal opportunity, so laws protect a person’s right to what he earns, and all are permitted to choose their legal means of earning wealth.
When equality is defined as “equality of outcome,” that’s a red flag. And when there’s coercion involved, that’s another red flag.  Then that coercive government decides how much is too much for someone to have earned, takes that “surplus,” and gives it to someone the government decides they’d like to have it—such as someone who can vote to keep power in their hands. That’s corruption. Equal opportunity means there’s a level playing field for everyone. But there will be unequal outcomes, because people will put different levels of work, and produce differently valued products and services.
Everyone needs food and shelter, and everyone should give charitably to those who can’t afford it, so government takes from those who have plenty and pays for the food and shelter of the less fortunate.	Everyone needs food and shelter, and everyone should give charitably to those who can’t afford to provide for themselves, so people who have enough and to spare freely give charitably to those who would otherwise go without.
Coercion is the red flag again. It’s a mistake to think government has feelings. Government is simply power; it can’t be charitable. Whenever government takes from producers to give to non-producers, they disincentivize production. That eventually leads to not enough surplus for the ever larger body of non-producers. Charity has to be voluntary, or it isn’t charity at all. If a people care about the poor, then the solution is for people to give freely. Voting for government to take from someone else and redistribute isn’t charity at all.
Everyone deserves medical care, so government forces everyone to buy health insurance that the government determines is best, at the cost the government requires, regardless of specific individual needs or preferences, or ability to pay.	Everyone deserves to be able to seek medical care, and for those unable to provide payment for themselves, philanthropy can offer aid. Free market helps provide better service at better prices, which is good for everyone.
Coercion shows up here again. Plus, you have government deciding what everyone “deserves,” which is dangerously subjective. Add to that, health insurance isn’t medical care; it’s a method of payment that separates the patient from the costs, which leads to increased costs. The free market always leads to better products and services at better prices. If better and more affordable medical care—or any other good or service—is the goal, then searching for more free market approaches is the solution.
Gun violence is bad, so people shouldn’t be allowed to own guns, or ownership should be strictly controlled by government. Law enforcement personnel should be depended on in all circumstances to protect against outlaw violence.	Gun violence is bad, and cannot be completely prevented by law enforcement, so people retain the God-given right to defend themselves—as long as they are sane and law abiding. Otherwise the unarmed innocent are at the mercy of the armed perpetrators of violence.
Law enforcement—or protection of life, liberty, and property—is actually a proper role of government. Government has been granted that right from a people who have the right to protect themselves. They don’t give up that right when they hire government to help. Claiming that a person no longer has the right to protect themselves looks like (and has historically proven to be) government trying to increase its power over the people. The Second Amendment, at heart, has always been about the people being able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.
Marriage is a statement that people are in a sexual relationship and live together at this time, and therefore deserve tax advantages and other privileges expected by any married persons. Banning anyone from marriage is bigotry and anyone with such beliefs should be prosecuted and/or ostracized.	Marriage is a permanent and exclusive commitment between a man and a woman, forming the basis for a family, and is to be protected and encouraged, since it is the basic unit of civilization—the best way to safely raise children, educate them, prepare them for productive adult life, and inculcate in them the principles of civilization. Redefining marriage as anything else damages the family.
Changing the definition of marriage does not eliminate the reason for the original definition of marriage—to raise children within the basic unit of civilization. Adding coercion to change the definition just makes worse the failure to meet the basic civilizational need. In this case, not only does the southern hemisphere redefinition fail to sustain civilization, it fails to even perpetuate the species.
Religion is allowed for those who think they need it, but they shouldn’t expect public policy to support religion in general, nor should they be allowed to express their religion in public places, such as on public property or in the workplace.	A religious population is essential for a free and prosperous civilization. People get their rights from God, and govern themselves in accordance with God’s laws. Religious freedom, therefore, is essential for civilization, and should be encouraged in public policy, so that the free exercise thereof shall not be infringed.
Notice coercion again. Instead of government protecting the rights of free people to believe as they see fit, government controls, with its coercive powers what the people are allowed to express and where. Freedom to think and believe and express are essential for a free people to choose civilization and all that comes with it. Government interference, rather than strengthen civilization, can only erode it.
Government knows best what information it needs in order to protect everyone, so it should have free rein to gather data and use it as it sees fit; no one should have the expectation of privacy in today’s world.	People should feel secure in their persons and papers, without any illegal searches or seizures. Law enforcement officers must have legal warrants for searches, and no data not pertinent to a pending case should be retained if gathered inadvertently.
Government is intended to serve the people; people aren’t intended to be the subjects of a ruling government. Any time government steps on the rights of the people, claiming “government knows best,” that is a step into tyranny.
Everyone deserves to have a job that pays a living wage, so government can force employers to pay what the government deems necessary, regardless of the business’s ability to profit under those requirements. The government knows best what a minimum wage should be, and assumes all employees are in need of a wage to support themselves free of family or other help that have traditionally been provided for young workers gaining skills.	Everyone is free to exchange their work for pay as they see fit, according to their skills and value to an employer, and the employer is free to exchange pay for work, as it values the contribution of that employee. This reduces unemployment and offers employment that gives experience that may lead to better opportunities in the future for a worker who shows his worth.
Government decides what people “deserve”; again, that’s a red flag. And coercion—forcing businesses to make decisions that are bad for business—is another red flag. This kind of government interference exemplifies this principle: Whenever government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the interference.
Government may favor people of various races, ethnicities, or genders, because government knows best how to make up for perceived past generational disadvantages. People not meeting quotas put forth by government should be punished and labeled as bigots until they conform, and may be labeled bigots even after they conform.	People should be valued according to the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin or some other characteristic.
Again with the government “knows best” about anything. Then add the coercion. The tyranny way may try to disguise itself as kind, giving, and fair. But it’s really about favoritism and unfairness enforced by coercion. Justice needs to be blind for a reason—because we’re all created equal before the law. Anything else, and "fair" is up to an unreliable ruler.

Coercion, in some form, shows up every time the southern hemisphere way is tried. And governmental authorities claiming that government “feels,” and has positive human traits such as generosity or wisdom is just a cover for those governmental authorities to take more power—with the goal being they don’t even need to hide their motives anymore. They’ll just wield power.

Whatever government claims is a beneficence they want to grant, you can look at the goal; if it’s worthwhile, there’s a better northern hemisphere way to actually get it, free from government interference and its unintended consequences.