It has been over a month since the last episode of my podcast, so, with my latest episode, I’m starting a new “season.” It sounds better that way than to explain why there was such a long gap between episodes.

Season Two, Episode One.

One of the great mysteries of the progressive-programmed electorate is how it can forget so quickly one rationale for a policy (“flatten the curve” so as not to over-burden hospital infrastructure) and then embrace nebulous, unrealistic rationales (“beat the virus”). Mosts people are just too distracted and foolish to follow this crucial giving away of the moral high ground and intellectual respectability. Instead, they take it on faith.

And it really is faith.

But unlike faith in God, which puts you in an almost-impossible-to-test realm of epistemic extremity, faith in Salvation by Government is easy to show up as idiotic and disproven by facts and the unfolding of events.

Still, the faith is strong. Especially among moderately bright people. And why, you may ask? Well, I have mused upon this quite a lot. And evolutionary anthropologist Edward Dutton has investigated this sort of thing scientifically. But part of what we are dealing with is explained by class incentives: the moderate brights take up positions in the culture that have been heavily co-opted by technocrats using, chiefly, credentialist mechanisms — higher education — and the thing about moderate brights is that they excel at test taking and passing through low-end scholastic hoops. It’s very easy to navigate a world arranged by academics.

But it is not at all efficient, and it subverts the market order, for instead of using profit and loss as a test, other tests of efficacy come to dominate. And the domination of society by this class of people, these moderate brights, in a regulatory context, can be quite domineering.

Of course those domineering moderate brights don’t see it, because they have faith. It is the faith of statism. It is the major feature of intellectual life today.

twv

States without lockdown orders, or mask mandates, are not doing spectacularly worse than those with them. Indeed, it ranges from “better” to a wash.

Which makes the policies inexcusable.

So why are these edicts being promoted and followed?

For the same reason politicians send us to war and we go. For the same reason there is war fervor and excitement. For the same reason crowds shout in triumph upon the death of millions elsewhere.

The State with its claim of sovereign authority tempts everyone, and it encourages us to be reckless, bloodthirsty, moralistic, self-righteous, and worse . . . out of fear, first, and some imagined advantage, second.

This similarity between war and the lockdown orders is fairly clear, is it not?

The “moral equivalent of war” is immoral, and we, like sheep, almost always go astray to the bad shepherd that is the State.

The State’s a mind-trap. It messes with your heads. It takes your fear and makes you do crazy things, like think prohibiting people from engaging in commerce and normal human interaction because some even peaceful interactions play against what is said to be the general welfare. But obviously, in the case of the threats that start most wars and the menace that is this pandemic, the “cures” are worse than the disease — in part because our benighted species has been infected by a far worse virus than SARS-CoV-2: that worse infection is statism. Political messianism, in other words.

Thinking that salvation comes from authoritarian force.

It is amusing how rarely anyone brings up the First Amendment; the freedom to peaceably assemble, one of would have thought, was something to be protected, not squelched. But oh, how politicians lust to squelch freedom in any form! It’s in their memes and maybe their genes.

And give them an excuse . . . well, don’t.

The proper response to a pandemic is caution, courage, curiosity and conscientiousness — all within the field of persuasion and property rights. Not state edict.

And by the way, “edicts” are not laws, in some jurisprudential theory, and the distinction is understandable. I won’t go to one local store that put up a sign mandating masks because of “Inslee Law.” Inslee’s our idiot governor. He cannot make law. Ascribing law to him is a kind of heresy to republicanism. I’d rather play anarch than subservient swine to Inslee’s edicts.

But maybe we can avoid accelerating our grimace. When I hear a person chide Trump and Trumpians for breaching the “rule of law” but in the next breath insist upon the need for lockdowns, I do indeed laugh.

Yet, should jackbooted thugs with badges come to take me off to the gulags my leftist friends seem itching to create in their drooled-about “Truth and Reconciliation” re-education camps, from my mouth may come bitter, not mirthful, laughter.

But of course the peace-lovers will no doubt gun me down instead. You know, “for the public good.”

Which they cannot explain on rational grounds. For this epidemic does not justify tyrannical proclamations and a general totalitarian response. Not even plausibly.

But add in fear and subtract sound judgment, and of course: anything goes.

As long as it is statist. That parasite meme is firmly running people’s brains now.

twv

Hillary Clinton; Donald Trump; Joe Biden; Kamala Harris — there is a sort of progression here, a ratcheting up of insanity.

Unaccounted trillions of spending and receipts in the Pentagon and HUD; remorseless deficit spending and ballooning-in-the-trillions debt; Federal Reserve policies that would make even a Rothschild blush; ignorance of ecological crisis coupled with a fixation on a non-crisis (global warming) and now the coronavirus panics — what is becoming clear is the enormity of public idiocy in our tolerance for rising levels of folly.

Never-ending wars that make no sense but do make vast graveyards; surveillance that becomes increasingly accomplished and omnipresent; and disclosures of ominous secrets that accumulate yet make hardly a ripple in the public mind — what are we supposed to believe?

We should wonder whether we are exhibiting some sort of collective death wish.

What’s certain is that we ramp up the bizarrerie year by year.
And these Months of Q (as I call this period of post-election/pre-installation of a president) are quite enjoyable to watch.

Pop up the popcorn, heat the butter, and enjoy the show.

And if this conclusion seems tacked-on, a hollow ping of a cheery note? Sure. But Trump’s basic challenge against the vote counts from Election Day is such a major blast of discord — and his lawyer Sydney Powell’s charge of massive voter fraud via corrupt electronic voting system democracy’s biggest j’accuse ever — that all the Q Anon talk that roiled on the back burner now bubbles over. Q prophecies always seemed preposterous. But not much more than Powell’s. They are of a piece. And they will soon reach a falsifiability test.

For guidance, soon, we may wish to consult When Prophecy Fails — or That Hideous Strength.

“Pics or it didn’t happen.”

That’s a popular online taunt: #POIDH. Say something that stretches credulity, and get back that challenge: show us your photographic evidence. 

That’s the idea.

President Donald J. Trump is challenging the outcome of the presidential election, on the basis that it was stolen. Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani gave a 90-minute press conference on the Trump team’s case for massive election fraud, in which Biden pulled out from behind and came up with enough votes to send him to the White House.

Trump has long been warning that the pandemic- (“Dem Panic”-) induced use of hastily contrived mail-in ballots around the country was a recipe for massive vote fraud. And after an election which saw weak Democratic down-ballot performance (losing ground in the House, for example) and in which Trump himself increased his votes by several millions, his case is not altogether implausible — with so weak a general showing, how did Biden come from behind?

Giuliani claims to have thousands of affidavits of vote-count wrongdoing in major Democratic cities in swing states, and . . . yet we see little interest in the press to cover this astounding claim without the framing of the story as “unproven.” Fox Business’s Neil Cavuto actually cut off a White House feed because the claims being made had not been verified — and were apparently too dangerous to allow on the news. Bizarre. For my part, I have not ever believed in the security of electronic voting systems, or the necessary probity of those operating them.

More impressive than Giuliani’s affidavits and astounding stories, as well as more disturbing, is the claim by super-shark Sydney Powell (see photo above) that the software used by Dominion, the company that supplied electronic balloting in 24 states, was designed to rig elections in Venezuela for Hugo Chavez (and others), and was used to flip millions of votes for Biden this election.

Tucker Carlson, of Fox News, not unreasonably asked her to show his audience the evidence. He says she refused.

I don’t know why, yet maybe we all soon will have an answer. But when extraordinary claims are made, we really do require evidence of a non-ordinary nature.

Indictments or it didn’t happen: #IOIDH.

twv

What are some ways how to not be bothered by people’s ignorance?

  1. Develop the ability to enjoy explaining things, which would work against their ignorance. Then realize that were they not ignorant you would not have much occasion to educate.
  2. Realize that everyone is ignorant, as Will Rogers wisely explained, only on different subjects. Try a little humility!
  3. Impute responsibility for their ignorance correctly — on forces outside your control. As Hellenistic philosophers sagely advised, there is no point in getting worked up about things you cannot appreciably change.
  4. Develop a grand theory of knowledge and nescience, and take comfort in the fact that though people are largely ignorant, we can at least understand why. Once you have a grasp of the reason for something, it becomes easier to handle.
  5. Feel superior to the ignoramuses. If you are proud in your knowledge, you cannot really be bothered by their ignorance, since their ignorance performatively proves your superiority. Revel in their ignorance!

Hmmm. That fifth method seems a bit suspect, eh?

…as answered on Quora, June 10, 2018….

Yesterday,* reddit announced that the popular site was banning subs devoted to vices and forums that trade in them.

Example? The market for pipes and pipe tobacco — deleted without any warning, chance to appeal, etc.

This is crazy, and not merely because tobacco is legal and pipe smoking perhaps less harmful to smokers than the more popular cigarettes and chewing tobacco.

Note that even if they couldn’t keep facilitating the sale of tobacco, a lot of the posts were for pipes, which according to reddit’s own rules is still OK. Same thing happened to popular subreddits such as beer trading, scotch trading, cigar market.

Pretty much all gun-related ones are gone too (THE CHILDREN), including one that was for airsoft guns.

Meanwhile, you can still use reddit to watch pornography, see videos of people dying, trade for dirty panties, get advice and support on how to commit suicide, etc. etc. etc. All the important stuff.

And YouTube, this week, de-platformed gun manufacturers and instruction videos.

The assault is in full swing. The culture war that increasingly divides the First World just got huge teeth, and major Internet companies are doing what the governments have hesitated to do: engage in ideological and values-based censorship.

This is so eerily reminiscent, isn’t it, of the “puritanism” of the Moral Majority and other “rightwing” religious groups of the 1980s and earlier? Of the Code put in place under Catholic pressure in the 1930s?

But the impetus is not coming from that quarter. The censorious, nannyist crowing about this guns and tobaccy and beer etc. is entirely from the progressive wing of the culture war. As I (and not a few others) have been saying: It is the progressives who are the new conservatives, repressive and paternal and hubristic.

Droll, too, how this is a performance by progressives of an old anti-liberal theme: “corporations can be just as dangerous as governments.” Yet the performance did not come from a natural flowering of corporate entelchy — it has come from progressives themselves taking over management and H.R. departments and hijacking them for their political-moralistic ends. And though this looks very dark for the open society, at the moment, for liberality and live-and-let-live — for tolerance and true diversity (value diversity; thought diversity) — and it looks very much like a huge consolidation of power by progressives, I suspect that the game is not over, and that we have reached Peak Progressivism.

And, indeed, that is probably why this is happening. Progressives have seen the backlash growing, and they are scared. Panicking. Over-reacting. Which shall lead to even more anger at the progressives.

I do not really doubt that the tide is turning. But I do not know how long this crest of tyranny will carry on before it crashes in the surf of history.

More ominously, I do not know if it will come to fighting in the streets and death squads and what else.

So, progressives: your comeuppance is at hand. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


* I wrote this two years ago, published it on Minds, but not here. Consider this a belated archival publishing event. The apocalyptic nature of our times — revelatory and epoch-ending — is sure interesting to watch.

N.B. I grabbed this image from ThisIsCommonSense.org.

…originally posted to Fb on October 24, 2020….

It is possible that whoever wins the 2020 presidential race will have won through vote fraud. Many states use electronic voting machines that have been repeatedly compromised (hacked; cracked) and this has been available information, known to Americans, for decades. But as far as I can tell, next to nothing has been done.

This being the case, Americans have no one better to blame for any future de facto coup than themselves. If they shrug such information off with a laugh in an off year, an on year is no occasion to complain.

Now, China is the most obvious and likely foreign manipulator of U.S. elections, but Russia is the biggest malefactor that comes to mind. But since that is largely the result of four years of disinformation from CNN and other CIA front organizations, the biggest threat to America’s democratic infrastructure is the Deep State cabal itself — or, in the case of intertribal Deep State struggle, themselves. What if the CIA/FBI/NSA were backing Biden, and the Navy/Army/trad Pentagon backing Trump? The question might be which group has compromised the systems in which states.

We are entering an age where the real arms race pertains to election fraud technology.

twv

On Gab, I listed some of my biggest issues that I think about when judging a presidential campaign. But I forgot the one that seems most urgent now:

1. The deficits, debt, and financial system, including
2. The Federal Reserve and the monetization of debt and all that horrid jazz.
3. The wars. Warfare state is obscene, and American wars are not in America’s interests. Our allies are often evil and duplicitous and deeply weird (Saudi Arabia) and way too powerful in OUR government (Israel) or not at all reliable (Germany, France) or too reliable (Britain, but not for long, if at all any more), and the whole mess, much of what we know is b.s. because our leaders feed us b.s.
4. The Deep State — spies on us, tells us untruths, lies to us, perverted our media, and harbors strange secrets, propping up an academy geared to pretending it has solved everything and everything out of the mainstream is “anti-science” and “conspiracy theory.”
5. Taxes. Too big a burden. Inherently unjust (of course) and especially, egregiously unjust now that not everybody pays them: corrupting.
6. Subsidies. Subsidies corrupt people like Biden and Trump, but they corrupt your welfare queen next door, too. And her five on-again, off-again layabout lovers.
7. Regulation. I prefer a rule of law.
8. Federalism: America’s original decentralized order would be a much better deal than our current bloated nationalist quasi-empire.

Gab.com: @wirkman

On most of these, Biden looks worse. But when I was making this list for Gab, I really did forget the issue of our annus terribilis, the lockdowns.

Now, I think Trump botched the coronavirus scare big time, and it is hard to forgive him for that. This much is obvious. But Democrats misunderstand Trump’s failure. They invert expectations, blaming Trump for the COVID deaths rather than for the pandemic panic. There were going to be deaths. What Trump did wrong was not counsel courage, instead giving in to Fauci’s fear agenda. Biden, in prescribing more lockdowns, and in “listening to the science,” is so much worse than Trump in this regard. Like usual, Trump listened to the wrong experts. True. But Biden makes listening to the wrong experts the core of his agenda.

Since I am anti-lockdowns, and see the growth of Therapeutic State tyranny the biggest current threat to freedom, the Black-Masked Duo, Biden-Harris, are for me pure poison in double dose.

But back to my initial list: Trump’s attitude to spending and debt has always ranged from goofy to duplicitous — but, alas, Biden and the Democrats are worse.

Take health care, the issue upon which so much spending rests (what with Medicare, Medicaid, and recent reforms). Trump’s talk on Obamacare and “health care reform” has been incoherent and even fabulist, and on this basis alone he deserves only scorn. Trump knows nothing about this subject. Even after years in office, he still says incredibly stupid things. Really, really stupid. But then, SO DOES NEARLY EVERY AMERICAN. This subject makes fools out of almost everyone. People cannot think their way out of a flimsy white prescription drug bag. It is astounding to witness. Trump has probably harmed the cause of good reform in this policy area.

Were not Biden and Harris relentless pushers of increased government involvement into this market, Trump’s crucial support for impossible things would provide all the reason we would need to never forgive him. But the Democrats are so much worse! The Trumpian inability to counter Democratic fabulist socialism with facts or logic makes him a vexing ally at best, and he arguably does more harm than good, for what it looks like is that Trump simply believes that he can deliver the impossible while the Democrats are simply incompetent at delivering the goodies for all. Trump does not think Democrats are wrong, exactly. He thinks they are impractical. A good businessman’s sense should sort this out!

Well, no. The impossible cannot be delivered. Free goods for all means the servitude of all.

Come to think of it, Trump’s witlessness in handling the coronavirus may be linked deeply to his useless buffoonery regarding Obamacare. This is almost certainly the case. So when (one scenario runs) Democratic/DeepState insiders unleashed the Wuhan virus they had paid for, they were sucking Trump into the maw of his own incompetence.

On health care, Trump’s instincts are just plain wrong. But his instincts about ending the lockdowns are of course right. But because he is wrong about the former he is ineffectual — useless, almost — about the latter.

And with Trump, it is instinct and hunch and prejudice that we must focus on. For he knows almost nothing. Thankfully, Trump’s basic instinct against war is refreshing. Whew!

And it is almost certainly the main reason the Deep State and the elitist classes loathe him so much; this is why they fought so hard (and so crazily) to oust him.

That being said, what pertains to other governmental matters pertains here: Trump doesn’t know anything really about foreign policy. Indeed, he’s a sucker for a general in uniform, for every crackpot Pentagon warmonger who wanders into his ambit. And because the Republican intelligentsia has been infested with neocon goons and rah-rah-men since the days of Reagan, Trump has witlessly surrounded himself with war hawks who have led him to a generally incoherent foreign policy.

Regardless, he can still boast of more foreign policy successes than Barack Obama can, and though his stance against China is riddled with problems, Trump at least recognizes China for the minatory power it is. All in all, he may be the best foreign policy president of my lifetime, yet this half century has been so bad that he can nevertheless be quite terrible. Biden and Harris, stooges to the Deep State, would tow the Deep State line. Of course. And Biden may even be a paid agent of Beijing (the fact that Democrats dismiss such talk only speaks to their lack of integrity on this issue: the evidence is mounting.) So they are beyond the pale. But as a hero in the fight against empire, Trump is mostly a stumble-bum, no feats of glory, only feet of clay.

I know, I know: Trump has his genius, I grant you, but it is a mercurial one. He has no real principles to speak of, and we are left with his instincts and his strange place in history.

Probably the worst thing about him is his incurious nature. He has prejudices. Some of them align against the thrust towards the Total State, and for that he tempts me to give him a break. But I cannot see him as an exemplary figure. Had he someone wiser than Steve Bannon to advise him in the fight against tyranny, he could have long ago seized popularity and assured a second term. There are dozens of things he could have done to win over, say, half of the Resistors. But his vices outweigh his virtues.

He has his supporters, still. And in a land of witless sheep, they are often refreshing. But Trump appears to be losing an important set: old women. He needs the crone vote, no? Or can he make up for losing their support by the rise of a promising new cohort: working men of all colors appear to lean towards Trump. Non-working people appear to lean against.

As for me, I don’t know if or how I will vote on Tuesday.

But if I do end up voting, it will not be for Biden. The Democrats have become unhinged, and their leaders are corrupt and dangerous — more, even, than the Republicans.

twv

Found online, an artifact of woke gender activism.

One of the peculiarities of modish (pomo) “gender” activists is that they demand to be “addressed” by their “preferred pronouns,” but seem not to understand that the pronouns they offer as preferable are not useful in directly addressing anyone — they are pronouns only fit to be used in speaking of them “behind their back,” so to speak. They are all alternatives to the he/she “gendered” pronouns, which are not used in addressing, but merely referring, to other persons.

People this clueless deserve pronouns they would definitely not prefer!

So, to clarify:

As I say on Twitter, my preferred pronouns remain “I / me / mine / myself.”

But if we are going to tolerate the proliferation of made-up pronouns, you may use these behind my back: “vi / vir / virk / virkself.”

But considering how irksome these musings may be to some, perhaps I, Timothy Virkkala, should push a set reflecting that irksomeness: “I / ir / irk / irkself.”

twv