By Conlan Salgado

Written by Conlan Salgado

The leftists are caught between a rock, and a molotov cocktail: which is better suited for Tesla vandalism? Depends, in part, whether one is walloping an empty car on a dealership lot, or a cybertruck on a street-corner with a pregnant woman inside.

The cultural right, delighted to find itself ascendant again but unsure how quite to utilize it, is vigorously rubbing two fingers together in the universally acknowledged gesture for “shame, shame!”

“Very poor behavior”, an outraged conservative might exclaim, or even–dreaded phrase–“totally unacceptable.” I prefer “sick f..ks”, although domestic terrorism is accurate enough (and prosecutable, unlike, lamentably, sick f..kery). I will save my moralizing for later.

Instead, allow me to examine the left’s new plan of attack–ATTACK–and perhaps give the lie to the criticism, so often heard, “that these people are just completely beyond logic.”

On the contrary, they are following an assumption quite logically to its conclusion. People, no doubt, are surprised whenever logical conclusions are mentioned for the simple reason that they are rarely reached. Often, the best conclusions are commonsensical, not logical; logical conclusions are those which cannot be further drawn out, or have no more behavioral implications–and they are often very dangerous and should be strenuously avoided.

Let me give you an illustrative though irrelevant example: suppose one assumes that images of God are wrong, blasphemous, unholy. If one were to take action on behalf of the belief, he might begin by smashing statues of God, or ripping apart paintings of God. But if he followed his idea to its logical conclusion, he’d end by killing as many people as possible, for he would–if he were perceptive–notice that man himself is an image of God, and in fact, the most uncanny.

See? I told you logical conclusions were often dangerous (and inordinately strange).

Let’s assume a basic fact: Donald Trump is Hitlerian. I mean: death-camps-are-coming, trans-people-are-gonna-be-genocided, -if-you-disagree-with-Trump-you-will-be-deported Hitlerian. . . Like, big-time, big-time Hitlerian.

Let’s assume another basic fact: Nazism is wholly evil. Let’s add one assumption to another and reach a basic conclusion: every person has a moral obligation to disrupt, disturb, waylay, undermine, and ruin the Trump Agenda.

Yes, we say; through lawful means. Lawful, they say? HAHAHAHAHAH. . . 34 felonies lawful? Convicted rapist lawful? Insurrection-instigator lawful? Donald Trump is the anti-law. He is illegality personified. His very presence in the White House has absolved the law. The only lawful way to resist Trump is unconditionally.

Again, let’s assume three basic facts: America is funding genocide; genocide is industrialized murder; murder is an unforgivable act.

1+1+1=America is irredeemable, Americans who support America are irredeemable, and Trump is the most irredeemable. For the irredeemable, redemption is naturally not an option: ergo, only punishment remains.

Although I might handle numerous other examples, the reader has discernment. Violence does not accidentally emerge from post-Trumpian leftist thought; violence is its final resting place. Indeed, one could cynically suppose that the surest strategy for overthrowing a Trumpian country is to engender, in about 70 million citizens, beliefs which necessitate the believer toward violence and simply trust a sufficient number to find their way.

At any rate: you should not look down upon illogical leftists. They are the ones not firebombing your vehicle and half-stoning your wife. It is true that the fire-bombing sort do not use sound logic–that is, their basic assumptions are bedlam-caliber false; however, their logic is valid–in other words, IF their assumptions were true (which they’re not), THEN their behavior would be very sensible.

In conclusion, allow me a little pessimism . . . leftists, at least some of them, may not be reconcilable. It is true, reconciliation is always possible, particularly if Trump 47 is wildly successful AND there is some appreciable degree of institutional reform over the next several years.

Nevertheless, I became very worried about the possibility of rapprochement when, in 2016, ending friendships, marriages, and casual relationships became fashionable over political disagreements. In the realm of theory, it is likely proper to say that society exists so that friendship becomes possible. But you and I do not found societies, we participate in them. Politics, for us, ought to be a means of protecting friendships and the well-being of those we love, and those we have obligations towards; politics should even be a form of charity, of doing good by our fellows. In other words, for us, friendship is prior to political action. The American founders certainly thought that citizenship was a form of friendship. We value friends, we love our spouses, we dearly want to protect the lives and properties and possessions we have built before we become political actors, before we swear loyalty to a policy agenda or party.

It is only he who wants to preserve or recover something meaningful and right who can act morally while acting politically. Sadly, this was seen not to be the case for many dedicated leftists. Paradoxically, their friendships were a form of political action (political in the Machiavellian sense, not classical sense), a means to and not prior to politics. Human connection per se was not precious, unless it somehow advanced a specific form of social justice.

I refuse to end friendships over politics because, simply, I love my friends. Because I love them, I want to do well by them, in part by electing gubernators who will enhance or protect the conditions under which all human beings flourish. That is the essential point, though: I love them first, and act politically after the fact.

Perhaps any random, relationship-ending leftist does maintain that a Trump supporter enables the destruction of both local and national society, and thus is not a genuine friend, nor could he be. But there we are led back to the main message of the article: the leftist believes in a different society and a different sort of social health.

If a mother thinks it a threat to her child’s safety and life to deny him “life-affirming” gender care, and a father thinks gender care is synonym for child abuse–what possible alternative than separation, than de-coupling?

Dear Friend

Somewhere along the line I let evil in

It is difficult for me to say when, but you knew

Precisely. Departure is the most painful

Rebuke anyone has received.

 

For much of my life now, I have stood rebuked.

Because of this, I have never been able to respond

Adequately to my own suffering, or yours.

 

Absence makes its sick pilgrimage through my house

Visiting with perpetual devotion your favorite spots.

I hate looking into empty rooms,

 

Abusing my sight, abusing my memory.

Nevertheless, the land around is still beautiful

The way you loved it. Most of your garden is about to bloom.

 

I water the unopened flowers diligently.

Tight-fisted about your own beauty, you said about me.

I read and work, that is all. I realized:

 

If you exist in the world with the people that you love

You have the right to call yourself happy.

Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR