Michelle Tandler, founder of Life School, in San Francisco, Tweets that 8,000 people sleeping in the rain in a city that has a $13 billion annual budget looks like ‘the least compassionate city on the planet’. How should Conservatives respond when Progressives awaken to evidence that their ideology creates the harsh reality of a Hellscape like San Francisco?
Video above hosted at Rumble.
Right Angle is a production of our Members, who fund its production, run their own blog and forums, and carry on a vigorous conversation in the comments. To join these producers, click the big green button at that site. To donate without joining, used the big blue button to make a one-time or recurring gift with PayPal or your credit card. Thank you. Special thanks to Alfonzo Rachel for sitting in for Bill Whittle this week on Right Angle.
27 replies on “‘Least Compassionate City on the Planet’: Progressive Awakens to Cause of San Fran Hellscape”
I often say to myself, Steve is the brains, Scott is the heart, and Bill Is the soul of show. Today I wasn’t so sure.
When the mind reaches out with compassion instead of an I told you so, like Scott says, there’s something mysterious and holy there. There’s dignity in this reserved, subtle and gentle welcome.
Hopefully we can renew hope in those who find things unfixable. They are the hardest hit during these times.
Great advice from Scott. No need to kick people when they’re down. “I told you so,” isn’t productive as people are figuring it out. It’s kind of a bread crumb approach, and one of the biggest bread crumbs we have right now is Ray Epps on Jan. 6th. Why isn’t he being prosecuted for instigating? Why would they break in WHILE the election was being challenged? Why did they stage it at all? Was the election maybe stolen? Who engineered the steal and why? Might it just be that the Democrats and their Republican establishment cronies including are, actually, the Marxist globalists behind the Great Reset?
Then you can start painting the bigger picture…
Let’s roll the tape shall we? Censorship through Big Tech. Propaganda thru fake news. Ri**ed elections. Get rid of electoral college and Senate filibuster to ignore the minority. Pack the Supreme Court so they can ignore the Constitution while ramming whatever dictate they feel like through Congress. Using the DOJ and FBI to raid journalists like Project Veritas and call all of their opposition “domestic terrorists” like people protesting a ri**ed election or our Marxist CRT indoctrination through schools (look up Sherronna Bishop, mom in Grand Junction, CO whose house was raided by the FBI).
These establishment politicians and their crony capitalist friends are MARXISTS. Control thru government and corporations using Saul Alinsky’s tactics of dividing people into victim groups, and the Democrats and RINO’s are leading the way along with the unelected bureaucrats like Fauci in state agencies, about 90% of whom are Democrats. Why do they think Obammunist vastly expanded the government?
Blame the Marxist, race-baiting, globalist Democrats and any Republicans who allow them to get away with trying to takeover America through the Great Reset (once a conspiracy, now a commercial where you will own nothing and like it) using systemic racism/”equity”, gender theory, climate change and the shamdemic as their levers of power. The Public Health Service Act of 1944 allows them to declare anything…including racism and gun violence…an “emergency” which they can continue forever with unlimited 90-day extensions which only require their approval.
Good news is that they’re failing miserably. I direct people to Curtis Bowers’s channel and watch the two Agenda videos. Then follow along with Glenn Beck for current events. Beijing Biden and the rest are in league with China through the World Economic Forum (Klaus Schwab), the Council on Foreign Affairs, the United Nations, the World Health Organization and partnerships with schools, universities and major corps thru their “diversity” programs and officers and now ESG social credit scores.
Maybe I ought to end my self imposed ban on social media and start posting photos of the industrial parks I deliver to. It’s mostly the ones in California that have homeless peoples RV’s choking the streets. You just don’t see much of that in the rational states. It’s also worth noting that the problem got exponentally worse in 2020.
The young progressives are naive with good intentions. The ones in power play on that naiveté. It’s always refreshing when eyes are opened.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Social Marxism in America has an unsustainable arc.
It’s like a yeast culture used in fermentation. The highest possible alcohol content that can be obtained through fermentation by yeast is 15% alcohol by volume. When the yeast culture reaches a certain point, the yeast has poisoned its environment with waste, which is what fermented alcohol is, and it dies.
The process, greatly oversimplified is — Yeast takes sugar, removes and consumes some of the carbon and hydrogen atoms which it uses for energy, and produces ethyl alcohol and CO2 as waste. When you drink your favorite adult beverage the ethyl alcohol component is yeast poo. It doesn’t matter if it’s beer, wine or spirits, those are just different methods of creating and concentrating yeast poo.
“Progressivism”, itself a misnomer as there’s nothing actually progressive about it and is more technically accurate described as Post Modern Social Neo-Marxism, works the same way. It takes the sweetness produced by humanity for humanity and converts it into something that makes people feel good but will ultimately poison itself to the point of extinction. If the process is allowed to run until it reaches its inevitable, natural end result the outlook is terminal for the yeast, or Social Marxists.
Consumption of this product is also similar. In moderation with careful and conscientious application alcohol is beneficial. It makes you feel good and if you don’t get stupid about it you won’t have any problem. There are benefits of ethanol to the body human just as with real compassion and caring there are benefits to the body politic.
On the other hand regular consumption of alcohol to the point of drunkenness is as detrimental to the body human as is the habitual intoxication of full blown Social Marxism to the body politic.
Politicians who espouse Social Marxism are the equivalent of a guy getting a girl drunk so he can have power over her. They’re trying to get in your knickers, sometimes as in the case of many powerful people on the Left that is literal as well as figurative.
Most people will look at a drunken alcoholic with aversion and disdain. Anyone who’s awake enough to actually look at a society drunk on Social Marxism will feel the same way. The party might have been great but the hangover is a total bitch.
Eventually, one of two things must happen. Either the fermentation is controlled and stopped to render a useful product or the yeast (or Social Marxists) will continue to convert their environment up to the point where they poison themselves with their own results.
This article is about a little yeast cell that looked around and said “Hey, we’re going to run out of sugar, end up with too much alcohol, and die if we keep doing what we’re doing.”
We need to cultivate that strain of “yeast”, it’s the most beneficial sort.
Well said Zo. Thanks for your thoughts. I’ve always felt that if Bill would let you speak more in your joint VS series, it would make the series better. I realize that your words are so cool/powerful, that Bill’s override is due to his exhuberance in hearing you. Nice to hear more of you in this episode.
Steve and Scott, well said also.
Is there a transcript of this? I want to quote Zo about liberalism.
Ok, here it is:
“Progressive” is really about as progressive as cancer. When it comes to liberalism you gotta follow what is the whole evolution of liberalism. You can’t take a snapshot of liberalism and say “Liberalism will be contained right here and liberalism will always be this good thing.” When you follow the complete evolution of liberalism your gonna find that ‘liberal’ means being liberal with making laws, liberal with your power, liberal with taxing money, liberal with spending money, liberal with who qualifies as a human being and who doesn’t, liberal with what’s good for the environment, and what’s not. Your going to take a whole bunch of liberties, and who are you to tell anybody else what the statute of liberalism is? Because that wouldn’t be liberal now, would it?
You said it Steve never interrupt when they are making your case and Scott is also correct we all need to be more welcoming. You never ask why a new member comes to church you just introduce yourself and welcome them there will be time enough for the rest after we get to know them. BTW Praying for Bill and Natasha’s speedy recovery.
This is the first step for this young woman. She is beginning to look at the outcomes, not just the intentions.
Hopefully she engages someone across the aisle (if she can find such in SF) who can explain that we want the same outcomes.
Just one example: She doesn’t want 8000 homeless sleeping on the streets; well neither do we.
Their policy solution: Give the homeless money. Our solution find them jobs so that they can earn money.
One of those is sustainable, one is not.
outcomes, not just the intentions
Conservativism vs. Leftism summed up in 4 words
If taking care of the “homeless” were as simple as getting them jobs, the problem would be solved. But the term “homeless” is a misnomer for what constitutes the population who live on and befoul the streets of San Francisco. For the most part they are drug addicted and or mentally impaired people who no longer have the means or ability to hold a job. They need institutional care, for which they cannot or will not give their consent. It was liberals who voted for the closing of state institutions that are meant to house people who cannot or will not accept help to care for themselves. If the state of California were to allocate the taxes they’ve stolen from the people of California to funding care facilities that can help, protect or cure the drug addicted and mentally ill, they could solve the problem. Unfortunately, it’s a democrat ruined state, and the populace that controls the vote seem to want it that way.
Excellent points, I suffered from trying to be too concise. Homeless fall into several categories, one of which is mentally ill and needing care.
The ones I see here that are standing at every major intersection holding signs for the most part do not fit that group.
Some of them are people who need a little bit of help to get back on their feet. Others are taking advantage of a system that gives them “free stuff” and extra checks at the moment.
Any solution, and they should all be local, not federal, will address each of these separately.
Some of them are easier than others. The far left politician wants to lump them all together as this is therefore a big problem with no solution.
Any sizable problem can be solved if you break it up into small enough parts.
I don’t believe (as the woman in the story put it) that these pols want a solution.
I just don’t believe that people who are standing on street corners with signs are legitimate. Jobs are begging to be filled in most areas – not necessarily good jobs, but most of them would generate enough income, along with local services in most communities to keep them from the elements and starvation.
What would you do, Ron, if you found yourself in a position in which a street corner was your only option? You wouldn’t do anything, because you wouldn’t be in that position. If people on street corners panhandling can’t hold a job because of the choices they’ve made, or been dealt an unfair hand, there are many, many services available, both charitable and state or federally funded that can help them get back on an even keel if that is what they want. But I don’t think it is. Letting soft-hearted, generous people “gift” them with spare change is what someone would do if all other choices meant they might have to make a personal contribution to their own welfare.
Services for the indigent in blue cities are a huge employer, providing a very nice living for the ones who are supposedly meant to help the disadvantaged. These cities don’t want to solve the problem, and they never will.
It almost brings back the Victorian idea of the worthy poor, at least I think that was the term. it drew a distinction as to why are you in that situation.
My wife and I used to volunteer at our local rescue mission. Until we realized nearly all of the people cycling through could work; i.e. had no health conditions that prevented them from working. We started to recognize some of them on the corners near the mission, and they rotated signs and positions. We stopped volunteering there. And never give them money at the intersections.
Now she works with the children and young women who are escaping abusive situations.
Yes! The worthy poor. That’s what I’m talking about. Those, who through no fault of their own, find themselves in desperate circumstances – think of the people of Kentucky who suffered that recent tornado – I want to help them survive and thrive, which most eventually will, if their goal is to become self-sufficient again after an unforeseen catastrophe or downturn. They are certainly deserving of a hand up and in this country of remarkably generous people that is what they will get.
Mrs Ron is giving her time to vulnerable people who need emotional and psychological and physical support. Bravo!
And thank you for not falling into the pit of pathological altruism which in essence is caring not where or how your altruism is used, whether it is beneficial or harmful to the recipient, but luxuriating in how good you feel because you donated to some cause or charity whose worthiness you didn’t take the time to investigate.
Excellent discussion with many good points on both sides of the conversation. This is exactly the sort of back-and-forth that needs to be in the public eye.
I get in arguments with soft hearted, misguided people out “in the wild” on the ‘net all the time. They think I’m a real hardass because I don’t support their misguided “caring”. They usually get really snarky when I point out to them that they don’t support their own misguided “caring” either. Most of them do not understand and some of them never will understand that what they’re doing is the equivalent of giving a child what it wants instead of what it needs.
If you let a kid dictate his own diet most will eat nothing but sugar in some form. Whether it’s straight from the sugar bowl or it’s commercially made candy or it’s from fruits, a straight diet of sweet things will rot the teeth out of his head and he’ll die an early death from obesity and diabetes.
That in a nutshell is what the Left does to adult human beings but instead of candy it’s drugs.
Then instead of doing something that will actually help those people, the Left uses them as a stepping stone to power. Democrats love poor people. This is clear from observing how many of them they create.
You and I belong to a small club of clear-eyed realists who are often mistaken or blamed for being Scrooge incarnate, mean-spirited selfish meanies and haters.
You are exactly right in your analogy of giving children free rein to make decisions they are not capable of making without harming themselves. This is what the “generous, well-meaning, soft-hearted, forgiving welfare industrial complex” provides for the “so-called homeless”.
A quote from Manhattan Contrarian, Francis Menton, regarding New York’s ineffective use of taxpayer money: “the level of spending remains astonishing. $3.5 billion for about 48,000 homeless represents about $73,000 spending per “homeless” person. That’s close to $300,000 for a family of four, a level that, if the family earned it, would put it in about the top 5% of income earners in the country — not to mention subjecting it to an income tax bill of close to $100,000 among the federal government, New York State and New York City…..But then, as noted here many times, no government bureaucracy ever solves the problem it is tasked to solve. To solve the problem would be to risk ending the program and putting the agency out of business.” https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2021-12-31-as-bill-de-blasio-prepares-to-leave-office-part-ii-homelessness
The welfare industrial complex keeps this problem alive and it won’t ever go away because of it.
Who was it that said; “The poor you will have always.” ?
Yoda?
😀
Jesus I think. Please correct me if I am wrong on that one.
Yes, I recognized the quote too, and looked it up to remember when he said it. When the woman poured the oil on his feet and wiped them with her hair, some said she should have given the money to the poor instead. Jesus said “The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.”
Get well, Bill. Thanks for taking the duty, Zo.
Scott, you nailed it at the end. Every Leftoid who I’ve challenged when their ideas fail never acknowledge that they were bad ideas. It was always someone else’s fault for not giving them enough money or failure to believe hard enough. Thankfully, reality seems to be handing out some long overdue black pills to our Lefty pals
On my computer screen, there was a little bit of dirt right over the s in your last word (pals). It made the s look like the dollar sign $. Bit of serendipity that added to your words.