Stepping away from the blatantly political for a time has already proven healthy. This morning, an aphorism entered my brain which, in turn, inspired a whole lot of thinking.
Some people demand absolute perfection of all others, but possess no desire for self-improvement.
I’m sure someone else has said similar at some point in time, but nonetheless the thought was inspiring for its completeness. When discussing politics with most people, exceptions are often brought to the table as if they somehow disprove the original assertion. For instance, one might say that a free market solution to healthcare is wrong, because one individual in certain extenuating circumstances might receive inferior care. The imperfection is then championed, weaponized empathy is applied to it, and soon the media talking heads ponder why Republicans want to push granny off a cliff.
Forget the political side of this for a moment and focus on what the real underlying message is. This is imperfect, says the academic, and since it is imperfect it must be discarded.
This same brand of thinking is what leads to excessive legal wrangling over minute issues of grammar. Second amendment opponents will drive themselves into conniption fits over the position of a comma. The point, the spirit of the law, sails right over their heads. They are consumed by a search for perfection, for an absolute set of principles that governs all human interaction without the slightest deviation.
In other words, they demand perfection from all others, while celebrating their own victimhood and eschewing self-improvement.
Those of us with a modicum of sense have long made peace with the fact that anything involving humans is going to lack perfection. The presence of perfection in anything short of the divine is, in fact, prima facie evidence of error. It cannot be perfect, thus either someone is mistaken, or is deceiving you. Demands for perfection should be scoffed at. One may as well demand flying pink unicorns, for all the good it will do.
In this way, academics and media talking heads are prone to treating people as some kind of scientific experiment. The Scientific Method provides us with a situation where a counter-example is proof of error. If, for instance, I were to dispute the claim that, in a vacuum a feather would fall at the same speed as a hammer, one counter-example would prove me wrong. Both were brought to the moon as a sort of amusing demonstration, of course:
With humans, however, it does not work this way. And this is a key problem with the way academics are prone to thinking. If a counter-example is found to disfavored public policy, wrongthink, or politically incorrect thought, that example is deemed sufficient to disprove the theory. If one person suffers because, say, Obamacare is repealed, then it is proof that Obamacare was good, and free market healthcare is bad.
I feel like I’m stating the obvious here, but humans are not feathers and hammers. Conduct your experiment with another set of humans, and you may get an entirely different set of results. These people are committing a category error long before their favored political positions are even properly formed.
The thing to note about folks who think this way is that they rarely reflect inward. They are quick to criticize the imperfections of others, but are loathe to look at themselves under a similar microscope. This is how you can get folks who complain about greedy capitalists, and yet are caught with their hands in the cookie jar, stealing money for themselves. You would think that someone obsessed with perfection would start with himself, but alas, it is rarely so.
Human perfection is impossible, short of divine intervention. And whatever else academics might believe, they are certainly not gods. Hell, even the Greek gods had less personal problems than they do.
Of late, politics has been particularly nasty and overly repetitive. Russia! Russia! Russia! Trump tweeted something. Something was sexist, or racist, or some other thing. And then there’s a contingent of folks who are non-ironically bringing Nazi shit back. No, I’m not talking about being anything right-of-center (we’re all Nazis according to the political Left), I mean folks who actually break out the swastikas, Hitler quotes, and Jewish conspiracy theories.
All of this is too much. It’s headache-inducing. At one point, I could laugh at politics. Bill Clinton couldn’t keep it in his pants, George Bush tried to eat a pretzel, and we all remember the flying shoe of death. Rubio robot recited his lines, Chris Christie was a giant donut, and Trump blamed Megyn Kelly’s foibles on Rosie O’Donnell.
Today, the amusement has been sucked dry, and replaced with the constant bleating of sheep. It’s not funny anymore. Everything is identity politics. Everything. You can’t have a glass of milk without someone saying that milk is white, therefore racist. You can’t enjoy Chinese takeout without accusations of microaggressions. You can’t even fish in my neck of the woods without some PETA protesters coming by and dumping your catch into the sea and calling you a murderer.
Most folks in the world just want to be left alone. And that is precisely what cannot be countenanced these days.
Well, to hell with that. I’m going to take a break from politics for at least a few days. Maybe I’ll write about whiskey, or technology, or Byzantine history. I don’t know.
But no politics.
I highly recommend other folks do the same from time-to-time. This level of politicization cannot be good for anybody.
One thing that has become clear to me over the years is that people can reason themselves in and out of pretty much anything. Evidence can be provided for just about any assertion, no matter how ludicrous, and debunking it can lead to an endless rabbit hole of argument and counter-argument that never resolves much of anything. You can test this by googling just about any idiotic idea, and mountains of “evidence” will be found to support it.
So how does a man determine what is true, or at least more likely to be true?
Scott Adams has an excellent method for sifting through bullshit quickly and efficiently. He provides a list of common methods of discovering the truth:
Experience of People You Know
Note that each one of these methods contain serious problems if used alone. For instance, personal experience can be narrow and subject to confirmation bias. Experts may lie to you, or be a member of Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s Intellectual Yet Idiot class. Scientific studies can be twisted, or could be outright fabrications. Common sense, which I actually liken to basic logical consistency, can be wrong on the basis of flawed assumptions.
So a good bullshit filter is taking the list as a whole. A lie will not pass all 6 items. Neither is it likely to even pass a majority of them. Studies and experts may, for instance, tell you that Islam is a religion of peace. But common sense, pattern recognition, and the experiences of people you know would tend to counter the assertion. Where one contradicts another, resolution must be made. If your experience and the experiences of people you know contradict the experts, who do you trust? In that case, I look for a motivation for the expert to lie (like, say, grant money for Climate Change researchers). If I find a blatant conflict of interest, I will usually dismiss the expert opinion on the basis of the other evidence. If I don’t, perhaps I need to reevaluate why my experiences and those of folks I know are different. Maybe there is another factor at work.
Some time ago, I explained that Francis once changed my mind in a big way on an important issue. At the time, I considered mortgage debt to be generally good. After all, experts claimed that it was good debt, studies showed that holders of mortgage debt did better than their fellows, and common sense generally appeared to favor home ownership (I later understood that it didn’t, per se). The experiences of people I knew were good, and I recognized the pattern that homeowners were generally better off than their fellows. Everything lined up for this, right?
Except it didn’t. My personal experience went south in a hurry. And in 2008, the experiences of people I knew turned sour as well. And when I went back and thought about it a little more, even common sense (in line with what Francis originally wrote) suggested that being exceedingly careful with debt was the wiser course. The experts, of course, changed their tune pretty quick, for a while. But one of the things which turned me off to media talking heads and anointed experts was precisely how quickly they turned, backpedaled, and pretended their earlier assertions had never even existed. After that debacle, I’ve been a lot more skeptical of their class.
Point is, when I reran the assertion through the bullshit filter, I became convinced that Francis was right, and I had been wrong.
But you must be very careful with the tool. Some time ago, I had a self-admitted Marxist attempt to convince me that the red states were economically backward, and that the quasi-Socialist policies of the blue states had created economic gains relative to their backward right-wing brethren. He cited some experts that were criticizing Kansas, and some others who were criticizing the South.
Interestingly enough, I am a well-traveled man, at least with respect to the lower 48 states. Having just returned from a trip to Philadelphia, the evidence of my own eyes immediately contradicted the Marxist’s assertions. Most of Philly was terrible. Outside the downtown core, it looked like a bomb went off. Hiroshima probably looked more attractive after it was nuked. And even in the urban core, the sidewalks smelled like piss, there were cops on every corner, and the black panthers were demonstrating right across from City Hall, in an effort to get an Islamic terrorist freed.
The evidence of my own eyes did not show me a fountain of prosperity for Philadelphia. Nor have my travels to other northern cities shown me likewise. Now, one might say that Miami and Atlanta are bad too, and that perhaps this is a trait of big cities, not something unique to the blue states. But even the worst areas of Atlanta and Miami were better than most of Philadelphia. It was that bad.
Nor, I should note, do my friends who live in Chicago and Detroit say any better about those places. Oh sure, each has a limousine liberal urban core. But outside of that, they are all cesspits. And I lived in Los Angeles long enough to know that it is nearly as bad as Philly. No, the blue states don’t get to claim economic superiority, regardless of what GDP numbers say. There is something terribly wrong with blue state cities. And if some red state cities have a similar disease, it certainly isn’t anywhere near as bad.
So the experts can make their claims all day long. I’m not buying it, no matter how well they present their case.
Folks these days put too much stock in some items of the bullshit filter, and not enough stock in others. Where personal experience contradicts the experts, where common sense and pattern recognition contradict the studies, a resolution must be made. Most people would have you rely on the experts and the studies more heavily. But over time, I’ve come to favor personal experience at least as much.
Winston said it properly in Nineteen Eighty-Four:
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre.
To this day, this remains one of my most frequent citations. Buried in this is a central truth about many ideologies that have been peddled throughout history: they assert the primacy of another’s view over the evidence of your eyes and ears. Once trained to dismiss this, a man might be made to spout any kind of absurdity.
Leftists often assert that the Rightist has a closed mind. But it is the Left that commands us to ignore what we see and hear, and to spout only pre-approved views, without question or critique. Their notion of an open mind is actually a controlled mind. Skip the bullshit filter, believe what you are told, obey.
No thanks. I’ll run everything through the bullshit filter, thank you very much.
Perusing the usual suspects this morning, I came across a piece at Liberty’s Torch which bears some commentary. In it, Francis explains his view on the recent unpleasantness from CNN and anonymity in general:
I do disapprove of what CNN did. There are Internet users with good reasons to keep their real names a secret. Certainly the maker of that video was within his rights to travel under an anonymizing moniker. However, allow me to say that:
I have much more respect for persons who don’t hide their identities when they express themselves;
Had this fellow traveled under his right name, CNN would have been unable to do him any harm.
I understand that in our time, a policy of openness about who you are and what you believe is double-edged. Those who find your thoughts persuasive will respect you more than otherwise. However, those who find your sentiments (or you personally) offensive or threatening will be able to target you. If you regard yourself, or persons you love, as too vulnerable for my policy, I understand your decision.
But remember the breadth of the Internet, and the tissue-thinness of the concealment an anonymizing moniker provides. What CNN did to that video maker, it can do to you. For that matter, it takes far less clout and far fewer resources than those possessed by CNN to do it.
Just a quick thought. Feel free to dismiss it as the blather of a man who probably has “nothing to lose.” Except that if you really knew how much I have to lose, and how often vicious persons have threatened me and it, you might sing a different tune.
Personally, I am very divided on this issue. As a result, I continue to operate under a sort of partial anonymity. I am immune to casual attempts to discover my identity. But I don’t operate under any sort of security, and, indeed, my photograph is in the upper right corner. It is also present on my Twitter feed. My Facebook friends are aware of my generally Right-wing leanings, now. I have spoken about family history, and it would not be difficult at all to discover my identity. Indeed, I’ve been doxed before.
At the same time, I don’t sign my name at the end of every piece for a very important reason: it could cost me money. Among my clients and business partners, I deliberately avoid political discussion. No doubt a good many of them are fully aware of my views anyway. But by avoiding discussion of such matters, we focus more readily on matters of business.
Fact is, I don’t expect most folks to understand my views or how I came to believe them. And if any are inclined toward Leftism, not only would they fail to understand my views, they would possibly come to see them as racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, or whatever. It is likely I would lose business.
Now, one might say I am being dishonest with them. But that’s not true either. I explicitly avoid political discussion with them, and they grant me the same courtesy. There are no lies exchanged, only a shared understanding that political discussion can ruin otherwise good business relationships. Now, if CNN came and made a national news story out of something I said, the issue would be forced with them. Their compatriots would ask “why do you associate with him, he said (insert something they don’t like here)?” The relationship would thus be damaged, or destroyed.
On the other hand, I am not personally afraid to air my views. So I attach my photo. And to folks I trust aren’t out to cause me grief, I readily disclose my identity.
Nonetheless, if CNN made me the subject of one of their Maoist Struggle Sessions it would cost me a considerable amount of business. I could afford to suffer the loss, mind you. I generally live below my means and have significant savings and assets. Furthermore, while some of my clients are undoubtedly Left-leaning, many others are not and would probably stick by me even in such an event.
And this circles back to one of the strongest reasons to maintain some level of anonymity: your income. Character assassinations from the Left generally focus on your income. They want to get you fired from your job, or ruin your business, or render you unemployable. And they will twist and spin your words to do this, if necessary. They may even invent lies out of whole cloth, if they don’t find enough to incriminate you. They will take your words out of context, or interpret a joke seriously. If you’ve ever said anything hasty or angry on the Internet, they will unearth it and use that too.
Remember when that poor chef was tarred as a racist because she used the N-word once, decades ago, right after she was robbed?
If Leftists had respect for free speech, anonymity wouldn’t be necessary. And even today, as Francis says, putting your name to a thing shows a level of conviction that the anonymous often lack. But on the other hand, signing your name to a thing can carry a financial cost that one must be comfortable paying. It’s a trade off. Using your name grants authenticity, but can render you and yours more vulnerable.
Only you can decide if the risk is worth the reward. For myself, I have decided to split the middle. I go to no great effort to hide myself, but I maintain a sort of gentleman’s agreement to avoid too much political publicity for sake of my business relationships.
The fact of the matter is, it would be very unwise for CNN or any other entity to dox me and make me the focus of a struggle session, for then I would be freed to sign my name to all of this. The cost would have been forced on me anyway. They would get no apology from me, no grovelling. And I would only become more forceful about my opinions, not less.
Because at that point, what have you got to lose by just going with it? And that ties into another point. If the Left and the media keeps up with tactics like this, it could get very ugly. I have resources and alternate sources of income to carry me through such a time. What happens to folks who don’t have such resources to call upon? If you destroy their livelihood, you will have created an enemy with nothing to lose. You will have put their backs to the wall.
The Left ought to reflect very carefully on this. The anonymous denizens of the Internet could become a lot more dangerous if pressed into a corner. I wouldn’t recommend this course.
Remember when I spoke about the moral high ground? Well today we are witnessing another chunk of Marxist moral authority cracking and falling apart. I’m not sure how much more the Progressive Left can take before it loses all credibility, before the preference cascade sweeps it away, or forces it to resort to outright war.
Marxism’s grip on the moral high ground is slipping. They are weak. The assault must be pressed more vigorously now. Why now? Well, CNN has resorted to blackmailing random meme makers on Reddit and 4chan. Why? Because he created an anti-CNN meme that Donald Trump retweeted on Twitter. Like most tyrants throughout history, the busybodies at CNN can tolerate no dissent, no humor targeted toward them. Complete submission to the moral authority of the Leftist media, and by extension, Marxism itself, is required.
But by bringing the immense power of CNN to bear against a single random meme maker on the Internet, he has exposed the increasing desperation of the Marxists, who in their constant attacks on the Right, are exhausting the moral authority that fuels them. CNN has tried to reclaim their moral authority by saying he was an anti-Semite, a racist, and other such things. But whether true or not (and nobody trusts the media to make those judgments any longer), the thrust of the matter is that CNN has attacked a single individual of no particular importance for daring to make fun of them.
How can they claim the moral high ground if they destroy random people on the Internet?
How can Hillary say she is better than Trump when she steals money from poor black girls in Haiti?
For once in my life, I’m seeing the Right do what it ought to have done all along: fight back and contest the moral high ground. The fact that CNN feels the need to attack small time individuals on the Internet shows their increasing desperation. They know the high ground is slipping from their control.
One way or another, folks, this is coming to a head. In the next few years, we’re going to see who is going to win this thing. Nothing is off the table anymore. All decency has been jettisoned. All mercy extinguished. This is a no-holds-barred fight to the finish. If the media loses the power to commit character assassinations, I’ve no doubt that the Left will increasingly resort to the more literal form. And if it takes all the might of CNN to take down one anonymous guy on the Internet, their power is definitely on the wane.
They deployed everything against Trump and lost.
Isaac Asimov once said in his Foundation novels that violence was the last refuge of the incompetent. For the Left, it is the last weapon they can deploy in order to keep their control over our country, our civilization, and maintain themselves as the arbiters of right & wrong, the ultimate moral authority. They are edging closer to deploying that final weapon, and CNN is the proof.
They have declared war on /pol/ and /r/The_Donald. They may not like where this heading.
Enjoy the show, as CNN is rendered impotent, turned into a pale shadow of itself. Their reputation is falling apart. First Russia conspiracies, fake sources, lies… and now targeting individual normals. They are fast running out of weapons. They will be as powerless as Sauron, soon. Nothing more than a foul wind that cannot even hold form or shape.
This case sickened me beyond belief, because Nicki is right. The bureaucracy decided that the parents had no rights in this case. They had raised the money to seek experimental treatment in the United States, and the British courts decided that, even though there was no cost to the British taxpayer, the parents had no rights. They couldn’t even take their child home to die in peace with his family. I’m sure the experimental treatment was a long shot. It probably wouldn’t have worked anyway. But God knows, if this were my child, I’d fight to the last, to the most extreme chance possible. The public largely agreed with them, that’s how they were able to raise the donation money in the first place.
But the primacy of the State cannot be questioned by us mere peasants.
It’s disgusting. It’s sick and twisted. And from now on, whenever some Leftist insinuates that I am immoral for opposing state-run healthcare, I’m going to point to this incident and tell them that their sacred moral high ground is complete bullshit. Giving the State the power over medical treatment decisions is not morally superior in any way whatsoever.
I feel terrible for these parents. Not just because their child is going to die, but because they aren’t even permitted to fight for him.
“Great. Now this Scaramucci story was a big problem, and not just because we got caught. As you know, Russia is ratings gold, but if we keep coming up empty we’ll leave our audience as unsatisfied as a woman married to a liberal man,” Zucker explained, using an analogy his audience could relate to. “We just can’t keep reporting shaky Russia stories about billionaires based on single, anonymous sources that turn out to be fake news.”
“So … avoid slandering billionaires? Maybe focus on rodeo clowns and so forth?” suggested Jim Acosta.
“Exactly,” replied Zucker. “Don’t do this kind of thing to people who buy their lawyers in bulk! I’m not saying pick on people who can’t fight back against a giant media company but, you know, try and pick on people who can’t fight back against a giant media company.”
This is pure comedy gold. I admit I lost it with the brony reference. Leftists may have won the Culture Wars back in the day, presumably during the 60s, but their obsession with avoiding offense, and internecine ideological cannibalism, wherein they all jockey for position in the Victim Olympics, has rendered them vulnerable.
Remember when I said that Marxism possesses the moral high ground? Well, their position has become weak, and they are caught up in internal strife. Now is a great time to remove them from this position. Their comedians are unfunny, their reporting borders on being completely made up, their election scams failed. They are in disarray, and resorting to increasingly extreme tactics, like Antifa rioting in the streets, and apologies for loony Bernie Bros who go out on shooting sprees.
We may never get another opportunity like this, if we fail to take this one. Satirize them, insult them, give them a small taste of the loathing they’ve given us for decades.
Even Sean Hannity, a paragon of proper sportsman-like conduct, has seen the golden opportunity we’ve been afforded by Leftist stupidity and haughty arrogance. Watch this little clip:
I’ve no doubt that the Left (and phonies like Joe) will grow increasingly unhinged and angry as the world continues to defy their will. Remember, they thought they had this thing in the bag, they thought it was all over, that we of the Right were a mere mop-up operation. And now they are being pushed back on every front.
Xerxes can whip the sea until he is blue in the face, but it changes nothing.
This afternoon, I came across a fascinating Tweet thread by the esteemed Eve Keneinan. Eve echoes my own thoughts on the subject of Academia and militant anti-theism. Leftists love to make fun of folks they perceive to be peasants. Farmers, rural folks, working men, they are all stupid hicks and rubes to the hard Left. And Leftists love to make fun of the Christian faith possessed by these folks. Stupid sky wizards and zombie overlords, they’ll say. All the ‘brights’, the so-called smart people are, of course, proper atheists and good Socialists.
Except as Eve points out, they aren’t. Sure, the working man might not have a fancy education, but this doesn’t necessarily imply stupidity. And meanwhile, those truly comfortable with their own knowledge and experience seldom see a need to be insecure about it. It is the midwit, the person who is moderately more intelligent than average, and thus has had years of smoke blown up his ass about his relatively high intelligence, who is most vulnerable to such insecurity. And, in turn, superficially intellectual philosophy is appealing to him.
It was [midwits] in Vietnam who were most likely to turn traitor. They are the most easily led by the nose class of persons.
Stockdale spent 8 years in the infamous Hoa Lo prison, the “Hanoi Hilton,” and observed many things about the human condition.
One was the varying effects of Vietnamese communist propaganda on various types of men.
Rough, uneducated soldiers were largely immune. A sergeant from Tennessee met every attempt to break his loyalty with one word: “BULLSHIT!”
Stockdale, highly educated (having studied philosophy) was also largely immune. He could show his captors how THEY were misreading Marx …
The men who turned coat were the moderately smart, moderately educated. THESE are the class that are MOST susceptible to propaganda.
Flattery and negging, in turn, are the weapons used to convert the midwit into the service of Marxism. You’re stupid if you believe in the Christian sky wizard, and the ‘invisible hand’ of Capitalism. You’re dumb if you think you have freedom. But you’re smart if you understand Marxian dialectic. You’re smart if you see through to the great wisdom of Socialism. Only the educated and wise, you see, are capable of understanding the nuance. Your own insecurity is a weapon in their hand. Your desire to be perceived as intelligent is soon used against you.
Whereas the “stupid rubes” are largely immune. They point, laugh, and say “you’re full of shit.” It doesn’t matter if you call them stupid. That is something they’ve heard from city-slickers since the dawn of civilization. And you can flatter them all you like, but they are largely immune to that, too. For them, fancy words are about as useful as a windshield wiper on a goat’s ass.
The city boy with a 125 IQ who gets his 4 year degree, on the other hand, is extremely vulnerable. He’s intelligent enough to notice that he’s above the norm, but will likely always feel small in the presence of greater men. Academia can easily mold him into a good Socialist by playing the flattery/negging game. He is invested in his status as better than others, and that is the easiest lever with which to move him.
Of course, the highly intelligent, highly educated folks tend to be relatively immune to this sort of thing. If you are very secure in your intellectual capacity – and this is more a matter of knowing your limitations than anything else – the lever will not move you. Only truth will do. Fooling such a man is extraordinarily difficult. But, it should be noted, that in many ways the country rube is still the harder man to fool. The high intellectual will evaluate and entertain a thing, dissect it, and attempt to understand it before passing judgment on it. The “rube” will simply dismiss it if it fails to produce concrete results. The how and why isn’t of much concern to him.
In many ways, this is very sad. For though folks on Twitter are prone to using the term “midwit” as an insult, it really isn’t one. A man of moderately high intelligence and good education is incredibly useful. They form the ranks of engineers, technicians, programmers, medical specialists, and a number of other critical fields. They just need to get over themselves. Yes, you’re smarter than the average bear. But don’t get in over your head. Just because you were the best basketball player on your middle school team doesn’t mean you’re going to go pro. And don’t let folks falsely flatter you and manipulate you because, deep down, you’re insecure about this.
And lastly, remember one other fact. The folks you might dismiss as uneducated hicks are often a lot more intelligent than they appear to be. What, did you think every guy with a 150+ IQ went to an Ivy League school? Some were happy where they were at. Some preferred to till the soil, or work on old cars, or DJ dingy nightclubs. I’ve got friends of all shapes and sizes. Some of my people are rednecks from the sticks, who do a lot more hunting than they do reading. Others, like my friend Francis over at Liberty’s Torch are men of immense intellectual capacity and education (don’t tell him that, I don’t want his head to explode!). And you know what? I learn a little bit from all of ’em.
If you get over yourself, then no matter what your IQ level or educational achievements, you might just learn something. And, of equal importance, you might avoid swallowing a load of complete bullshit.
If you use Twitter with any frequency, you are probably already aware of the special sort of stupidity emitted by the Blue Checkmarks, that is people who are verified by Twitter. Since Twitter has a habit of banning Rightists, either directly or through shadowbanning, the number of verified Conservatives is rather smallish. It is non-zero, of course, but it could be said that Twitter wishes there were none. Thus Blue Checkmarks are usually liberals, and a large percentage of them fall into the category of Shitlibs, the special breed of liberals prone to the most idiotic and useless drivel imaginable.
The Blue Checkmarks Strike Again. This appalling level of deceitful filth equates Donald Trump joking about “grabbing ’em by the pussy” with literal sex slavery and mass murder committed by ISIS. This is the mindset of the far Left, any deviation from their narrative is deemed literally Hitler. Or in this case, literally ISIS. As this “genderless male” puts it, it is binary. If you are not with him, you are evil. And as evil, you must be destroyed.
Now, some might say that an out exists. What if the person disagreeing with the narrative is merely stupid? Ah, well Blue Checkmark Twitter has an answer for that, too:
So, stupid and evil are the same. They are both evil. Crass sexual humor is the same as sex slavery and mass murder. Words are literal violence. But violence conducted against Rightists isn’t violence at all. These people play very fast and loose with their language. It is language pollution of the highest order. Words mean whatever these cretins want them to mean. And, of course, what they want words to mean is “kill Righty” or maybe it’s “kill Whitey.” Whatever. In their world, it’s probably both.
Here’s a great example of that:
Of course, the casual reader might say that I’m cherry picking these. And sure, I’ve picked a few whoppers for the amusement of my readers. But you can browse for yourself, and see the idiocy and hateful language spewed by Blue Checkmark Twitter. Many of these people have jobs in entertainment, media, and academia. And most of them despise you. For every Sean Hannity with a Blue Checkmark, you’ll find a dozen of these cretins. And as we saw with Milo Yiannopoulos, Twitter loves to remove the checkmark, or simply ban a Rightist, if they believe they can get away with it.
This Tweet appears to have been removed, but the Blue Checkmark who tweeted it is still around:
If this were during the days of the Obama administration, and a Rightist posted something like that, he would have been booted off the island with a great deal of media fanfare. This goes right under the radar.
But don’t take my word for it. Browse Blue Checkmark Twitter for yourself. You will never find a greater hive of scum and villainy.
So much of political thought boils down to a very ancient question, one that was never satisfactorily resolved: does man possess free will? Does fate exist? And if it exists, can it be altered?
We talk of concepts like the inevitable progression of history, and the primacy of the poll numbers, and changing demographics, as if such things are fate. “The numbers don’t lie,” we say.
But do they? Can they?
There is a quote from the movie Gattaca (an excellent film, by the way), that touches on this.
“No one exceeds their potential, it simply means that we didn’t accurately gauge their potential in the first place.”
Is human potential measurable in any real sense to begin with? Can we quantify it? And if not, why can’t we?
One of the appeals of religion is that it tries to answer this question, where the numbers fail to explain it. Most religions look at the soul as a piece of the divine, as something supernatural, tied to this world, perhaps, through the human form, but not of this world, and thus not bound by its rules. Not measurable. The numbers cannot comment on the divine.
And in that, they create an out. An exit, as it were, from the idea that everything is fate, that everything was meant to happen according to natural laws of the universe. A part of man is not part of this universe, and thus not bound by its rules. And it is precisely this part that can defy fate.
I'm a DJ, developer, amateur historian, would-be pundit, and general pain in the ass. I still cannot decide on the wisdom of the Oxford Comma. These are my observations on a civilization in decline, a political system on the verge of collapse, and a people asleep at the wheel as the car turns toward the jersey barrier.