Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print




I was reading a post on liberal incivility in social settings at the blog Legal Insurrection by Professor William Jacobson who indicated that he is not going to put up with it anymore.  I think that is a fine resolution, but I was struck by this comment in the com boxes:


Subotai Bahadur | October 12, 2013 at 10:03 pm

Some time ago, on another site, I created a term for them. TWANLOC.  Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen.  We do not speak the same language.  We do not share a common history.  We have diametrically opposite world views.  We do not share a common culture. They hate us with a fervor that is literally religious. We share a common piece of territory, but they literally hate that territory.  We are not of the same nation.  History shows what happens when people that different and hostile are not allowed to separate peacefully. 

This is not going to end well.

I tend to be an optimist by nature, but lately, especially with the use of government against conservatives, as typified in the IRS scandal, I am beginning to wonder if “this is not going to end well.” My brain continues to tell me that American politics has always been rough, that we are nowhere near the conditions that led to the Civil War, and the habits of a very long domestic peace will keep the country from going off a very violent cliff.  However, my heart is beginning to wonder. 



What say you?

Tolerance as I define it


More to explorer

Quotes Suitable for Framing: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

I have not yet adequately expressed the more than anxiety that I feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourteenth

PopeWatch: AntiChrist

Sandro Magister minces no words:   While the controversy rages on in view of the synod on the Amazon, which in reality


Good video featuring noted Civil War historian Allen Guelzo on Reconstruction.  Once Lincoln was assassinated Reconstruction was probably doomed.  He wanted to


  1. Hi! I’m a U (for un-enrolled) on the voter list here in a diversified city, and consider myself an independent (from D’s and R’s) although there isn’t a party for such a person. My conservative attitude stems from a long term dismay with governmental ignorance of budgets, balancing of same, and arrogant, foolish indulgence; while pandering to economically poor voters about giving help that that is nonexistent because it’s been lavished away. Putting people on shaky ground is not tolerable, as witnessed Saturday with the EBT ‘glitch’.

    With maturity, my conservatism has solidified as to higher things than budgets, when liberals increasingly caterwaul with accusations and distortions about having rights over life, liberty, and death of fellow humans.

    Tolerance. Correct, “I’m a liberal”, there is never an excuse for hatred or abuse.

    Oh, and my religion is none of your business. The country needs your help. There are more and more poor people out there. There seems to be a deficit of monetary aid available. Use your resources wisely to help them.

  2. Postscript to ‘I’m a liberal’:
    This month I’ve had occasion to peruse the city voter list as there is an election in November, in which someone I like is on the ballot. There are a notable number of U’s.

  3. I am Subotai Bahadur, who posted the above at LEGAL INSURRECTION. I invented the term TWANLOC [and it seems to have spread] at BELMONT CLUB a few years ago. The detailed derivation there is longer than I will inflict on you here, but the bones of it can be found at CHICAGO BOYZ in a discussion of the concept of the Cold Civil War.

    The TWANLOC concept does seem cold and heartless. And it tends to cause Leftists’s heads to explode when they are exposed to it. But in fact, they are the ones who have brought it about.

    Literally for a half century; anyone who loves the country, the Constitution, has any sort of religious faith, or who is not a protected class minority has been told that they are irredeemably the enemy of humanity. Race, gender, faith, heterosexual preferences, insistence on the rule of law and the Constitution all place you beyond the Pale. We are told that we are hated 24/7 in all forms of the media, by our news organizations, by Leftists of all stripes including the Democratic Party in every format possible including screaming loudly in our faces, our property is fair game to be destroyed at will, and that “hate crime” only applies when the victim is a protected class. That we will be destroyed, in fact the president’s earliest political mentor terrorist William Ayers in whose living room Obama’s first political run was plotted, has called for the “elimination” of the 10-15% of the American population that will not be “re-educated”.

    In the last few years we have seen the Constitution and Bill of Rights gutted, the Executive Branch repeatedly placing itself above the rule of law, and every mechanism for the imposition of a police state put in place. The Executive Branch is open and blatant about using the resources of the government to attack political opponents. And the last few days, we have seen that Federal law enforcement will follow orders to attack the American people.

    They do not consider us to be fellow citizens who happen to hold different opinions than they do. They regard us as mortal enemies to be destroyed.

    It is time that we took their own words and actions to mean what they say they do. And react appropriately. The cranial expansion comes from having the terrifying prospect of a half century of our passive submission possibly coming to an end.

    I am enough of a historian to know that when even some of the factors in the CHICAGO BOYZ piece are present, and one side has already come to think of the other as less than equal and human; they will separate or one will destroy the other.

  4. I, too, am afraid this is not going to end well — at least in the interim before the Day of Justice and for those who do not turn and embrace the Divine Mercy.

    It occurred to me years ago while I was deeply involved fighting the long defeat against “liberalism” in the Episcopal Church that one of the core problems was that the two sides would use the same words, but with entirely different meanings so it was in fact impossible to have a dialog with them. (At that time, I knew enough to advise people not to talk to dragons but not enough to take my own advice. By God’s mercy, I finally woke up to that and became Catholic.)

    The fact is that every subversion of an established order, from Eden on, must begin and has begun with a corruption of the meaning of symbols, which above all means a corruption of language. The current crop of “liberals” are no exception. (By the way, I habitually put “liberal” in quotes, because that is exactly what they are NOT.)

    Since “liberalism,” like all the products of Satan’s workshops, has no inherent capacity for creation or sub-creation it can only take what is there and corrupt, pervert, and twist it to acheive its own ends. Hence, the vocabulary of “liberalism” is the verbal equivalent of Tolkien’s orcs, trolls, and Nazgûl — which were not the creations, but Morgoth’s and Sauron’s corruptions of elves, ents, and men. “Liberalism” itself is a corruption of the Catholic and Christian faith — one which in the end appeals to those attracted by the beauty of its concepts but lacking the courage to pursue it in the knowledge that “through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” [Acts 14.22]

  5. The social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has plumbed this phenomenon recently

    We face several problems in our political life.

    One is that the referees have fixed the game and the culture of the opposition is such that they are perfectly fine with it and retain their pretentions in spite of it. This mess is a constant with regard to the misfeasance of the appellate courts, but I was recently tangling with a rank and file leftoid defending the IRS and insisting that Tea Party organizations were getting what they deserved. The IRS has admitted its misbehavior; the hearings are for the purpose of delineating dimensions and precise personal responsibility. This particular gauchiste is one of the minority of dissidents (on that site) capable of actually arguing with his opponents rather than just insulting them.

    The referees are corrupt and the players (the President and Congress) are unable to accomplish anything. Also, our Byzantine process of constitutional amendment (conjoined to defects in the political culture) render institutional adjustment nearly impossible.

  6. I worry.

    As per the Democrat National Convention last year: God is out on a voice vote, and Government is the only thing we all belong to. They really, really, really believe in Government.

    In my local newspaper, every article reporting on a civic problem has the premise “how can Government solve this problem by spending more money to hire more people to run a new program?” For instance, gangs and gang violence. No individuals are ever at fault; the community is always at fault for not spending enough money. There is no individual sin; only collective sin to be expiated by spending more money.

    The IRS targeting the Tea Party has been the last straw for me, in which we find out the Party of Bigger Government is running the government for their own increase. All those public sector union employees are “voting their pocketbook”, using government agencies to stop people who wants less government from doing anything to reduce the size of government.

    Apparently, they think we’ll all be happy when we all work for the government just like they do. And rich people in the private sector will always have enough money stuffed into mattresses to pay for all this public sector happiness.

    The one bright spot I see is the Libertarian movement. It is a selfish movement and it is not far-sighted. But they seem to really believe in the principle of freedom of speech, and assembly, and association. They may mock me for believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, but they don’t want to spend a penny of taxpayer money to send government goons to remove my children from my home. They retain a healthy respect for the principle of free-market competition; they are sure that my belief in an FSM will fail me and my children, and they are willing to let me fail.

    They really don’t want government to be responsible for everyone’s children. They want to limit government. Therefore the parent is a necessary agent standing between government and newborn citizens.

  7. Admittedly my general low-key optimism for the future of the country took a solid hit last November, and the wild-eyed gun-graspiness that followed Sandy Hook cemented the suspicion that liberals really, really, really would like to see conservative (not to mention religious) America disarmed, silenced, and cornered. I do not think they will win this battle. But, we are at a disadvantage, because we see them as wayward children of God, while they view us as clumps of cells blocking the only road to Utopia.
    Pray, hope, prepare.

  8. “As per the Democrat National Convention last year: God is out on a voice vote, and Government is the only thing we all belong to. They really, really, really believe in Government. ”
    Freedom of religion must be absolute for when the atheist finds God, the TRUTH will set him free and that he may be welcomed with open arms into the church.
    Right now, in America, Freedom of Religion, all First Amendment civil rights are being obscured, obliterated and are actually being denied, through being granted by our finite government. Not so, the right to worship God in thought, word and deed, in public and in private has not been granted to the citizens by the state. The state is constituted to defend the peoples’ civil rights endowed by “their Creator”. The sovereign personhood of every citizen who constitutes the state is endowed by “their Creator”, by the Supreme Sovereign Being, our God. The finite state has no such authentic authority, as exhibited by the government shutdown, in which Jesus Christ was kidnapped and held captive in the tabernacle in the closed chapels and separated by the state from the hearts and souls of its citizens. The shutdown was used as an excuse to pilfer and plunder the citizens’ civil rights to worship God in speech, in the written word of the Bible as Freedom of the press and in peaceable assembly in community, with people communicating with and observing the reality of our Maker. Petitioning God for Divine Providence as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and in the First Amendment was not only disrupted, these civil rights were denied enmass. Dividing the peoples’ ownership of the land from their common good, imposing the power of the state to remove people from the land, and passing laws to inveigh against the souls of the citizens harkens to totalitarianism and despotism.
    Assuming the power to inveigh against peoples’ souls, the state assumes the responsibility for the peoples’ untimely and unwarranted death. Has anyone died and died without his Sacraments? Let the state answer.
    Death for government is spelled IMPEACH.
    Some of the above is posted at POPEWATCH

  9. Don, it’s amazing that the image you linked essentially contradicts itself in about 2 sentences.

    1 – Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own

    2 – Being open-minded does not mean arbitrarily respecting everyone and accepting everything.

    So…if Alice is a conservative and Bill is a liberal, and Alice is an orthodox Catholic on all-of-the-above social issues while Bill is not, that to me constitutes at least 2 or 3 matches to the list in the definition cited in #1 (I count “opinions”, “practices” and potentially “religion” as Bill may or may not be Catholic). However, the liberal author of #2, under the false flag of “tolerance”, somehow claims that these observed differences are less equal than many other differences that are eligible for “tolerance” protection…effectively saying that a difference of opinion on, say, abortion isn’t covered under “tolerance” between Alice and Bill…but if Bill and a third individual, Charles, disagree on whether they should be able to wed just a single man or multiple men, that’s honest “tolerance” of differences.

    The common thread in all of this is that a liberal is always willing to say “that’s fair” / “that’s not fair”, or various permutations of that…yet, they will be the first to protest about how one “cannot legislate morality.” By what yardstick does the common liberal determine that something is fair or not? That something is tolerable or intolerant? And, since almost all liberals at least implicitly (if not explicitly) hold to a subjective view of reality, how can any definition that they use contain the world “objective”? Beyond just that snarky observation, how do they repeatedly and consistently articulate a way to determine what is fair? At least, how do they do so without ending up like Nietzsche?

    They don’t…because they can’t.

    Hence, my desire to commission a new bumpersticker (if I believed that bumperstickers would actually solve the problem):

    “Forget morality…you can’t legislate fairness either.”

    Life isn’t fair…when we try to make it more fair, we actually make it less. See the anti-bullying campaign which is resulting in better, more evasive tactics on the part of the bullies.

  10. Last line spot on:

    ““… In order effectively to safeguard the exercise of religious liberty it is essential to respect the right of conscientious objection. This “frontier” of liberty touches upon principles of great importance of an ethical and religious character, rooted in the very dignity of the human person. They are, as it were, the “bearing walls” of any society that wishes to be truly free and democratic. Thus, outlawing individual and institutional conscientious objection in the name of liberty and pluralism paradoxically opens by contrast the door to intolerance and forced uniformity.” From the ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS 7 January 2013

  11. I will really worry when liberals assassinate conservative Supreme Court Justices while liberals control the Presidency and the Senate. Not before then.

  12. Charlie Martin has provided a quick rejoinder (if you must) for your liberal friends and relatives: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me for five years, I’m an Obama voter.”

    Then, step away.

    You can’t reason with an imbecile.

Comments are closed.