THE VAIN REPUBLICAN DELUSION

Examining Republican policies is appropriate for this group, because people like Phil Archer are part of some flawed groupthink. They imagine they are doing moral things, or imagine they are being tough on crime like Republicans from the 1980’s and 1990’s. And they imagine people who disagree with them, on things as simple as the Passion Lucas death, are somehow unworthy, dumb or immoral, or lying subversives with bad intentions.

In reality today’s Republicans are like some new breed of degenerate idiots, like a dark ages where there are no lucid Republican leaders or philosophers. A moderator here recently said nobody wants to coerce false confessions or convict the innocent. That may have been true in the time of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. But I have heard from dozens of Republicans who have said with pride that they like to use lies to lock up people who are innocent of the crime they were convicted of, as a way to round up undesirables and improve the world.

Republicans like Ron DeSantis want to claim they have a monopoly on truth and history and culture. But DeSantis is not a good enough communicator, or lies to himself, when he will not even say what he really believes much less sell it and lead and win supporters as a politician. One example is the recent bill where Chris Sprowls says parents have a right to know and participate in their children’s mental and physical health matters. The reality is they don’t want teachers with an agenda telling their sons to dress up as girls. Even simpler, they believe someone can be encouraged towards a gay lifestyle, and they don’t want their sons to be gay. At the very least, their constituents don’t want their sons to be gay. But today’s Republicans like Sprowls and DeSantis are too dishonest, or too dumb when it comes to communications, to lead and sell the preferred policy of their constituents, that they don’t want their sons to be gay.

I am easily able to tell you reasons I would not want my son to be gay. I think identifying who you are based on your impulses, or as a participant in a lifestyle of casual sex, is wrong. You should identify and advertise yourself based on your values, your mission, your ideas, your accomplishments, things that are actually hard and challenging in life, and individually unique. I come to this group and talk about injustice in the courts, I don’t come here and tell you I love meat-lovers’ pizza. And nor would I want my son to grow up identifying himself as a pizza eater, or wear shirts that reveal his love of pizza. And there is no reason if I had a choice, that I would want my son to be different in a way that is not beneficial, to be a member of a minority faction. And if I wanted grandkids, I might think having a gay son would make it less likely.

The point is not that I would actually think twice or care if my son was gay. It doesn’t matter what my personal belief is, and I would not be so self-absorbed to share it with you, or tell you to indulge yourself gushing to me about whom you would like to have sex with. The point is I can tell you or argue with you in favor of a policy. Phil Archer is just a crooked pussy idiot, and keeps his mouth shut when you confront him. If I didn’t want my son to be gay, I would come out and defend it and tell you why. Phil Archer used lies to give my friend life without parole for a crime that didn’t happen, where I have documented more than 50 instances of perjury by at least 10 people in her case. But Phil Archer is too stupid and evil to answer a single question about it, or say who he really is. They use a facade of convenient lies.

I think men like Reagan or even W. Bush could have honestly told you and defended their positions on talking about homosexuality in schools. Reagan might have said casual sex is not a calling, people need to be taught to define themselves more ambitiously, and look outward not inward. Bush may have said the Bible teaches homosexuality is amoral, and there are a lot of people to whom religion is very important. And there is freedom of religion in this country for those people to choose their lifestyle also, and how their own children are raised, as long as it is nobody else’s business. George H.W. Bush might have said there is too much sex ed in schools, and not enough reading, writing, and arithmetic. Why can’t DeSantis just come out and say there is too much gay this and trans that, and we don’t want our kids to be raised so self absorbed, and emphasizing sexual orientation as such an important thing? Say something, sell it, and lead.

Another example, is Republicans claim to be morally superior to leftists who rewrite and lie about history, and say America was evil at its founding, and built on slavery. But Republicans like DeSantis simply recite and expect people to accept without debate, things that are also suspect and convenient. People like DeSantis will say England was the first major nation in the world to outlaw slavery, and the United States was a close second. But that does not refute that the scale of slavery, and orientation around slave-intensive agriculture in the southern states, was large relative to Italy or North Africa. Was Italy or North Africa in the 1800’s “built on slavery” more or less than the United States?

It is an interesting topic how people like Patrick Henry could own slaves, and say “Give me liberty or give me death.” If Patrick Henry did not consider Africans to be human, that is something interesting, not something to be too dumb to talk about like not wanting your son to be gay. I thought Republicans were against sanitized politically correct debate.

Did early Americans think blacks were culturally incapable of sustaining themselves in a free lifestyle, because they lacked the education to feed themselves? I would find that dishonest. But that is approximately what someone like DeSantis will tell you. People like DeSantis say our Founders were morally opposed to slavery, and in this respect were morally superior to people anywhere else in the world. But they did not have a practical solution, for what to do with the three million people who were already slaves. And so it wasn’t their morals, which were the best in the world, but a simple problem of figuring out an alternative, that forced them to have a Constitution coexisting with slavery. Nobody has ever held this popular Republican argument up to scrutiny, and Republicans don’t want to.

Free-market economics instructs that free people will respond to market incentives to find something to do, without government concern or supervision. It is true this idea was new back in the 1800’s, and not broadly studied or understood. “The Wealth of Nations” where Adam Smith said an “invisible hand” will figure out things for people to do without George Washington needing to, was published in 1776. But agricultural economics had been around for a long time. This included the earlier Physiocrats who said a natural order will emerge that is both different from and superior to anything contrived by man. Agricultural economics and practices had long included serfs, indentured servants, and limitless variations of people working on farms for thousands of years, long before there was a middle class, bourgeois trade specialization, or an industrial revolution.

It was not necessary for all slaves to become bakers or merchants or factory workers. Being sharecroppers, or various other forms of unskilled agricultural labor other than slaves which have existed in various forms for thousands of years, should not have been intellectually strange or challenging to people like George Washington.

It is not so simple that liberals are revisionists who hate America, and Republicans know the truth and want to teach it to kids. Republicans are not some chosen people who are automatically right. They need to be able to stand up for and sell and explain and examine their own beliefs. Ron DeSantis is not a man who can or will do that. We have entered a dead period, where people like Ann Coulter just continue reciting stuff from the 1990’s. The only interesting person is maybe Hannah Cox.

The point is not to debate slavery. And certainly not to say that people can’t have morals unless they can explain them. The point is that men like DeSantis are simply not that great as they are imagined to be. Men like Phil Archer and Ron DeSantis are idiots, who are insulated from this fact by their own vanity and and the groupthink of the people around them. Ask Phil Archer “Do you have the audio of the 911 call, or the three gloves with suspected blood, or the name of the dog walker in the Mandi May Jackson case?” He will never answer. Did the arrest affidavit you used to search my laptop contain perjury in violation of Florida Statute 837.02, did that deputy commit a felony? Did Neisha Cintron or Jackson Athaide commit perjury on the stand at the Mandi May Jackson trial?

Could Passion Lucas have damaged that lower bumper, was the construction drum moved, wasn’t the accident report labeled preliminary, did Suzanna Page Norris even try to stop, shouldn’t Suzanna Paige Norris have been able to at least slow down enough for the accident to not be fatal? Isn’t confusing two license plates which are different culpable negligence or error by a cop who had no right to approach Sincere Pierce?

Phil Archer will no more say he likes using perjury, than Ron DeSantis will say his constituents don’t want their sons to be gay. And that is the state of the Republican party, evil idiots who cannot even say what they are for. Not morally superior, not smart.