The Bushes, Ted Cruz, and the Treason of Leftism

An article on why GW Bush hates Ted Cruz:

In 2003, Jose Ernesto Medellin was on death row for his subhuman crimes a decade earlier: the rape and murder of two young girls, ages 14 and 16. Medellin was an illegal immigrant and sought to have his execution stayed, claiming that during his trial he was not notified of an international law through which he could have obtained legal aid from the Mexican consulate. Mexico then sued the United States on behalf of Medellin and 50 other illegal immigrants that were incarcerated in the U.S. for crimes they committed on US soil, citing the same loophole.

District and appellate courts threw out Medellin’s requests, but the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Before the case could be argued, however, the Bush administration stepped in.

Bush took the position that as president, he had the authority under the Constitution to order states to review the convictions and sentences of foreign nationals in order to advise them of their rights according to international law.

Prompted by the Bush memorandum, Medellin re-filed in Texas state court. Who was the state’s solicitor general? Ted Cruz…

He (Cruz) argued that the President could not order Texas to reopen the cases without the specific authorization of Congress…

Cruz bested not only the president, but all of his allies in this victory, and just as the clock was winding down on the Bush administration to boot…

Conservatives were rightly outraged that Bush had been mostly silent on the policies and oppression of the Obama administration, taking back pats as a “classy” guy for not tearing down the worst president in our lifetime, only to turn his ire on Cruz. But as to why Bush did it? After his and Rove’s explanation failed to pass the smell test, a little bit of history tells us way, way more.

You can really view the Bushes easily in the context of rabbitism. George H. W. Bush was beaten by Bill Clinton, who is the definition of evil. Clinton raped women, lied prodigiously, watched his wife treat the warriors assigned to protect them as trash while he used them as errand boys, denigrated a military he loathed, and was just a general scumbag. And yet, the Bush’s curry favor with the Clinton’s every chance they get.

At the same time, the Bush’s curry favor with illegal foreign invaders over their nation’s own citizens, and even, as this article highlights, curry favor with murdering, raping, criminal foreigners who attack little girls, over their nation’s own law-abiding citizens.

All human behavior must weave its way though the maze of walls constructed by the amygdala’s aversive stimulus. Even when seeking pleasure, one is really comparing two possible outcomes, and avoiding the less pleasurable one – and the potential regret of pleasures lost as determined by the amygdala. So why might the Bush’s act this way, from a cognitive neuroscience perspective?

My suspicion is such individuals combine an aversion to not taking action (possibly due to aversive stimulus at the thought of not having status and being a leader), with a drive to avoid the dangers of actual attack.

As a result of these drives, they have to do something, and they look for the one path forward least likely to get them attacked, or least likely to pose real danger to them. Here Cruz is the easy target. No conservative will attack them as harshly as a leftist feminist would attack them for denigrating Hillary. Attacking Ted is the safest play.

This is the origin of appeasement. It is why faux “conservatives” will expend more energy attacking other conservatives than liberals. It is why law-abiding citizens will take the sides of criminals, murderers, and other scum over police officers and the criminal justice system. It is why citizens will attack their fellow citizens on behalf of criminal immigrants, even when those immigrants are clearly behind waves of rapes and crime inflicted on the populace. It is even, in its most pronounced form, why you find leftists who sympathize with our enemies – to the point that after September 11th they were saying we needed to ask ourselves what we had done to deserve the attack. They are driven to attack for status, but lacking balls they attack the easy opponent rather than the evil one. This is especially the “moderate” of one group, who is always sympathizing with and abetting the enemy of his own group.

This conflict-avoidant foundation, of an amygdala lacking resiliency in the presence of stress, is why you find this behavior increasingly presented as you move from arch-conservative to arch-leftist, and from poorer Americans to richer Americans. It is also why you will often find such self-flagellating, enemy-appeasing psychologies at the top of the social status ladder, but you will rarely find them at the bottom, unless it is some enemy group seeking to exploit the self-flagellation of their economic and societal betters as a political tool for personal advantage.

When you combine an understanding of how the amygdala nudges behaviors along narrow paths according to pain-avoidance, and you grasp how resources combine with r/K Theory to alter the amygdala mechanism behind it, making it less resilient in the face of adversity, you gain a very powerful understanding of what drives leftist political behavior.

It also offers an insight into the modeling of the process by events. Today, mainstream leftists appear to not be as willing to openly take the sides of our national enemies and terrorists, even though we all know this urge is as strong in them as ever. When they do satisfy it, they almost always seek to fulfill it on the sly. Why are they averse to this, when their hippie brethren of the sixties would so gleefully spit at troops, and extol our enemies, the Vietcong, as heroes?

I believe this is due to an amygdala pathway created during the aftermath of 9/11. If you recall, there were some leftist articles at the time saying we needed to ask ourselves what we had done to make the terrorists so mad at us, and examine those actions with an eye to not making our enemies so mad at us in the future. Given the magnitude of the attack, and the degree of utter rage flowing through the entirety of our populace, (and perhaps its closeness to the dot-com bubble burst) it was made clear that America was not going to tolerate such appeasing pontificating by the leftist idiot brigade – not this time. So violently aggressive had the country become, so palpable was the blood-thirst, that it burned an amygdala pathway into the brains of leftists that continues to constrain their dialog to this day.

For one brief moment, the average American became as much of a threat of spontaneous, violent beat-down, as the radical Muslim, violent criminal, or #blacklivesmatters thug appears today. This threat burned a pathway into leftist brains which made the average American’s interests of as great an import in their mind as the radical Muslim’s interests are perceived to be today. Why? Because Americans posed a threat. Capitulate in the face of leftism and they will attack as aggressively as they can. Threaten violence and they will proclaim their most cherished principles are morally reprehensible to them, instantly.

As amygdala research shows, unlike other forms of cognitive modeling such as memories, once amygdala pathways are burned in linking a behavior to an aversive stimulus they tend not to be erased or deteriorate with time. They can only be written over by suppressive circuitry, weakly, with great effort, and even then the original linkage circuits are easily reinforced to ignore the suppressive circuits with minimal nsubsequent conditioning.

As a result, those post-9/11, anti-treason amygdala pathways are still constraining leftists today, and forcing them to at least maintain the public image of pro-military patriot, as much as they hate the words. The leftists today will carry those pathways to their death – and believe their aversion to attacking our nation is born of genuine patriotism. In reality it is just the same ego-assuaging belief of the coward – that those savages he cows before are genuinely noble. And yet, as pathetic as it sounds, it has mostly eliminated the hippie who spits on troops from our nation.

You can see why I am so utterly disappointed in the leadership of G. W. Bush, and why I view his Presidency as such an utter failure. He was in a key position where he could have fanned the flames which were burning anti-leftist amygdala pathways throughout the nation, changed how the nation viewed the entirely of leftism, and produced a united America, uncontaminated by leftist treasonous urges, and devoted to America’s interests, every citizen’s freedoms, and the success of our nation. Such changes would have lasted for decades.

Instead G. W. Bush crushed Conservatism, gave us Obama, and left a country as unmotivated to support freedom as it was unmotivated to oppose statism and socialist oppression. Now today, police are the enemy, healthcare is a right, government can make you buy stuff, trigger warnings are everywhere, Muslim refugees are flooding in, we call Russia an enemy as they kill Islamic radicals, and socialism is the hip new trend.

It is why I would never trust any Bush to occupy any position, even national dogcatcher, ever again. The family is a family of rabbits, and thus they will always be predisposed to act a traitors within the gates, no matter how nice or likable their members may be. Betrayal of conservatism and support for statism is just in their genes. Fortunately Jeb has at least proven more honest about his inclinations than the last two.

There is of course a lesson here for conservatives. Occasionally events will occur which will so affect amygdalae that they can be exploited to mold and constrain leftist behavior decades hence. These will always favor conservatism, as only conservatism benefits from amygdala activation – leftism is all about amydgala deadening.

Specifically, there is a big amygdala-stimulating event approaching – and we call that event apocalypse.

Brace yourself, and prepare to exploit.