Archives for category: Politics

The enduring appeal of destructive utopianism

I know, let’s take from some folks and give the loot to others, turning the most deserving into — millionaires!

This variety of political reasoning is so popular that, instead of being laughed out of the public arena, add in a dollop of “race” and it’s a headline.

At least in California.

“San Francisco’s reparations committee has proposed paying each Black longtime resident $5 million and granting total debt forgiveness,” explains the Fox News Digital story. 

But why just “Black” residents? 

Oppression. Racism. The Usual Suspects of the woke: “due to the decades of ‘systematic repression’ faced by the local Black community.”

What happened to “systemic”? Why “systematic”? Maybe the inconvenient fact that there was no long tradition of chattel slavery in California requires that extra syllable. 

The San Francisco African American Reparations Advisory Committee’s notion is, we’re told, “to address the public policies explicitly created to subjugate Black people in San Francisco by upholding and expanding the intent and legacy of chattel slavery.”

So Blacks in former slave states should get ten million each? 

Or fifty. 

Do I hear $100 million?

Fortunately, the report will likely be shelved, as feared by its supporters.

Unfortunately, sufferers of commonsense deficit syndrome don’t realize how their all-too-familiar program negatively affects the actual people they say they serve. When you look at San Francisco’s mass lootings, which group of people do you see stealing garbage bag loads off Walmart shelves? 

The looters are mostly racial minorities who’ve been encouraged to believe they “are owed.” 

So they steal.

But any person — man or woman, black or white — who resorts to open theft throws a monkey wrench into his or her future. It’s no way to get ahead.

Which increases the wealth and income gap.

The utopians themselves make sure the cycle of dysfunction never ends.

twv

Ah, word choice: “been with.”

And “trans canine” is indeed a gruesomely hilarious result of the gender movement, and the left’s desperate anti-natalism which I see lurking behind its insane forms of trendy identitarianism.

Shakespeare’s Polonius advised: “To thine own self be true.” But few seek this kind of individualistic humanism any longer, and the cultural path led us to a place where fewer and fewer bother cultivating their own selves with any degree of success. So, as if to turn poor Polonius on his head, they have reversed day and night to become false to all people.

“I just want friends and a crowd” — this does capture the group categorization frenzy that youngsters seem unable not to engage in. Though this statement would have been more apt had she used “pack” instead of “crowd.”

Bestiality farded up as “trans caninism” is at least funny.

I haven’t been reading many satires recently since the artless satires of our reality appear daily for our amusement.


The cult of freak-flag sexuality seems to be approaching stefnal bizarrerie. And I confess: I am not in the least interested in coercing her not to fuck her dogs. I assume that if a male dog will eagerly go at it with her, it is consensual enough for me. But it remains absolutely vital for the main run of society to mock this bitch and laugh at her antics, and warn children from becoming as horrific as she is eager to become.

Of course, this could all be a joke: a sick, twisted joke. A parody of leftist transgenderist identitarianism. Or some come-on for an OnlyFans account. Hers is the first naked pussy I have seen on Twitter, so the chance that this is some form of put-on is quite high.

If so, congratulations? Made us look:

But the best part of all may be “her” claim to be a scientist, and thus smarter than the rest of us:

Would a practicing scientist say such a thing?

Not likely. Though Fauci came close. But that merely proved he was a trans scientist. Not a real one.

twv

My late friend Noel used to say that the real division in society was between those who thought “we should pay and pay and pay for sex” — by which he meant sexual intercourse — and those who thought that “sex should be ‘free.’”

The first time I heard him say this, I minimized its profundity. I immediately translated this maxim as being about sexual responsibility, and I did not see why one couldn’t be free and responsible.

Of course, I was thinking as an individualist, and most people are not individualists. The “right,” by and large, thinks responsibility can only be inculcated in society by limiting sexual freedom, while the “left” seeks to reduce the burden of sexual responsibility in the pursuit of freedom. Individualists, on the other hand, tend to find both attitudes a bit hard to take.

The sexual revolution was launched as a liberatory enterprise, but chiefly succeeded in reducing the bite of responsibility with a handful of innovations:

1. improved contraception and prophylactics, decreasing the pinch of natural consequences for multiple-partner sexual activity;
2. increased frequency of abortions, through legalization, which made it easier for sexually active members of both sexes to avoid the burden of taking care of the natural by product of heterosexual unions; and
3. extensive “welfare” benefits given to women without spouses but with children.

These three things allowed the sexual revolution to really take off. But the political elements of these three developments — and the second and third are largely political in nature — were not demanded by the masses. They were pushed by the elites, who themselves, historically, tend to lean left on cultural and sexual matters. 

But driving this idea was not merely that perennial and quite ancient temptation, freedom-without-responsibility. Deep in the heart of modern life another idea lurked, hidden just barely: over-population worries. 

The sexual revolution has been pushed by elites as part of an anti-natalist agenda, a frank and sometimes cruel demand for general population reduction. Pushing the ideology of hedonism and the legal policies that helped help thrive served to curb population growth. Especially among whites, which allowed post WWII eugenicists to feel less Nazilike and more racially altruistic. Many elite thinkers and politicians frankly pushed an anti-Caucasian agenda as part of their neo-eugenics.

The arc of the implementation of this agenda has been breathtaking to watch, but I do have two predictions.

1. I think that now, with trans, we’ve arrived at the penultimate absurdity — the ultimate having been described by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, but which I don’t think we can advance towards at present, because of limitations of current biotech. And trans will seal the end of the sexual revolution. It is too ridiculously absurd as well as manipulative of decadence: it too frankly defies the basic habits that maintain the civilization that encourages it. In ten years it’ll be worse than a deep embarrassment. There will be a crisis of consequences, yes (I predict suicides and mass revenge murders), which will lead to no longer being promoted. And the politico-cultural left will have suffered its second major comeuppance, after the fall of the Soviet Union (which itself echoed the post-socialism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries — see David Ramsay Steele’s book on Orwell).

2. But the elites will not give up. Their commitment to population reduction is classist and a matter of “identity.” So they will continue to support their agenda in the revolution that is now following the sexual revolution: the death revolution. Canada has already taken it up in a big way: the promotion of medically assisted suicide in a big, bureaucratized way.

We’ll see a lot more on encouraging suicide. Time to read Gore Vidal’s Messiah again, or watch, for the umpteenth time, Soylent Green.

Decadence is not just a matter of sex. It is food and death, too. Cannibalism and entomopophagy, and a whole lot more, too, will likely feature large in the near future. Our civilization seems to sport a death wish. And it is going to get ugly before it turns around.

twv

One theory of democracy is that it’s a stunt — a way to suck people into accepting more government than they would otherwise accept. Voting in elections is seen by these conspiracy theorists as fake, as a con job.

This is distinct from the idea that many elections are faked. Communists had an obviously fake form of democracy, where the outcome was nearly always known going in. It helps to have only one candidate, for example.

To discover that one or two or an alarmingly high number of elections are controlled not by voters but by hidden forces does not prove the conspiracy view of democracy, but it does suggest it. Which is why the Democratic sector of legacy media — most networks and news programs — is not reporting on the ongoing Twitter revelations much at all. Because Elon Musk has shown that social media interference in the dissemination of opinion and news during the 2020 presidential election was destabilized the integrity of that election, this is a topic too hot for propagandists to handle. It’s blankout time.

The Twitter Files, as subcontracted out by Mr. Musk to a handful of independent journalists, has been very instructive. Recently, we’ve learned that the FBI had a huge presence in Twitter’s employee ranks, with hundreds of former federal law enforcement and intel agency personnel swelling the ranks of the company. They even had their own employee server and new former-fed employee welcoming parties. And it turns out that the government paid Twitter to censor in partisan ways.

And Elon Musk has point-blank stated that the same sort of things were going on in other social media outfits.

This is not “regulatory capture,” where corporations imperialize bureaus by swapping personnel. This is partisan government-worker capture of business, not much different than how Nazi Germany worked: one party planting operatives in every major business.

Meanwhile, Mr. Musk has continued his goofy online polls. Earlier he had let Trump and “all” banned users back onto Twitter because of polling results. On the 18th he polled his audience about whether he should continue as CEO, saying he would “abide by the results of this poll.” A greater-than 14 point spread favored his resignation. 

And then someone suggested that only paid blue-checkmark people should vote in such polls, and he accepted the idea.

The latest tweet of @elonmusk’s that I have read stated, “I will resign as CEO as soon as I find someone foolish enough to take the job!”

Stunt!

twv

Free speech wouldn’t confuse people so much if they thought a bit more about this term of art in the context of “freedom of the press. ”

Like freedom of speech, everyone — not just “journalists” — has free press rights. But that doesn’t mean that you get to go into the pressroom of your local newspaper and print out your favorite recipes, rants or porn. Your free press rights relate to your owned technology that can be used for transmitting ideas.

If you have a camera, printer, xerox, mimeograph, web press, Internet server, whatever, your free press rights pertain to what you own and may legally control. If the bank comes in and confiscates your press because you have defaulted on the loan, it’s not abridging your free press rights. Though such an act would hinder your press workings, by freedom of contract the bank is OK to do affect your ability “to speak” via the press. 

Arguably, though, if the local mafia barges in and steals it, it does abridge those rights — the mafiosi’s theft is more than mere theft if done to squelch your printing about the mafia’s workings. And, by convention, this applies even more to governments, the traditional enemy of freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press is merely freedom of speech translated into the realm of transmitting speech beyond the reach of your vocalizations.

And, like freedom of speech, freedom of the press is not a fundamental right, no matter how primary a concern it be.

Both are terms of art, and one must have some knowledge of the social world to make sense of them. Not all speech is free speech, and not all press activities are free press actions — but the people who make this point most vociferously usually do so to suppress free speech and press. Which is why the issue is difficult.

twv

Summary Postscript: Both rights depend on property and custom. They are both instances of the basic human right to liberty, which includes the right to acquire, maintain, and divest property on whatever terms you may negotiate.

The Twitter-Pepe image, above, is by
Who Knows found on the You Know What.

Columbia River, northern shore, a few months ago.

//|||\\

It’s always been “a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” for (say some) there never was and never will be a real vaccine against these coronaviruses.

The fact (now established) that the pharmaceutical companies did not study their products’ capacity to reduce transmission, and the fact (now established) that the “vaccines” do not effectively reduce transmission to a significant degree (in most areas, it is the vaccinated who are getting and transmitting the virus), that means these pharmaceutical products fail at the one thing people really want in a vaccine: stopping an epidemic.

Now, the vaccines have accomplished one thing: a redefinition of what a vaccine is. We rubes always thought the goal was to stop infections, to bring down rates of transmissability to make the disease in question a rare and not a common event. But we were wrong. We were focusing on the major successes of vaccines, not the nature of all vaccines. One does not take a rabies vaccine to prevent getting rabies: such infections are rare events. One takes a rabies injection so that one survives infection.

You will occasionally encounter a knowledgeable person who will you instruct you on this (in haughty tones; typical for modern argumentation). And one’s proper response should be, at first, “oh, yeah: you’re right.” But then one should interrogate old epidemiological protocols which warn against pushing vaccines during epidemics. The time to push preventative vaccination is during lull periods. Ask your haughty friends about that. Better yet, ask an expert.

What happened this time around was that government-certified and -subsidized experts pushed an ameliorative* vaccine in a time of a pandemic, and did so within the context of a psychological operation (that is, an ad campaign) touting its expected ability not to ameliorate symptoms and disastrous consequences (cytocine storm; death) but to stop the spread of infections.

Other things were also done to stop the spread: mandates for mask-wearing, lockdowns and general “social distancing.”

The upshot of these latter has been shown to be ineffective.

It is more controversial to say the vaccines have been ineffective. And it is still ultra-controversial to question the “side-effects” of the two primary vaccine types, both of which focused on the infamous “spiked protein,” and which some of us have been warning about from the beginning: that this specific protein may be dangerous in and of itself, and using it to elicit some “immune” response is a very dangerous thing.

It is also, somehow, still controversial to bring up many other related topics, like noting that immune responses are themselves dangerous (since that is what a cytokine storm is) or that natural immunity is an effective and important element in fighting off even new diseases or that some cures can be worse than the disease they aim to cure.

//\\

As in a real swamp, The Swamp’s predators don’t all work together; unlike in a real swamp, it’s filled with packs that do work together: no One Over-arching Conspiracy, but a myriad conspiracies that often fit together. They are united, in the main, to keep The Swamp undrained.

//\\

The essence of the State is the transfer of wealth from some to others, under the banner of serving all, but with the insiders always taking the house cut. It is easy to understand in theory. But in practice?

A month ago I met a Russian-Ukrainian American at the beach, and we chatted. He’d been told about FTX, the cryptocurrency. He was under the impression that it was legit. The next big thing, it was touted to him, designed to provide a backbone to a new world financial system.

It now proves to have been a way for its creators to ponzi up a huge fortune, and for Democrats to launder money from subsidized Ukraine to pay for the 2022 mid-terms. It is quite the scandal. It’s in the news.

And Democrats will use its implosion to “regulate crypto,” which will get for them even more power.

The sheer corrupt evil that is the Democratic Party apparently knows no bounds.

As for future monetary innovation, I am only interested in cash. I would prefer it to be based upon — or better yet consisting of — gold and silver. That is what Outside Money should be. I just don’t see blockchain performing a decent function as store of value, much for less mechanism of trade. I think the U.S. should establish a standard, and then allow businesses to mint coins with one side being an advertisement, the obverse being the guarantor agency (U.S. Mint, to begin with).

Forget crypto. It was a nifty idea, but it is has several huge defects.

And the Democratic Party Machine must die.

//\\

I’ve never really been a conservative, and my heresies and apostasy are not in doubt. But I’ve never not “believed” in The Gods of the Copybook Headings.

//\\

Jack Gaughan, artist cover illustration for Jack Vance’s The Brains of Earth. 1966, Ace Books.

//\\

* I use “ameliorative” not because that’s the common medical term of art, the common adjective for this function, but because it’s such a good word . . . that I’d not used in decades.

\\|||//

Two new initialisms to consider: ASS and ASSS.

The American constitutional order is made up of the several states, united, and a limited federal government, consisting of three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.

But that’s the paper order.

The real order of the United States is a military-industrial complex conservatorship, with the federal government not serving the states but itself, first snd foremost, and buying off the populace with bennies, secondarily. This Nation State is made up of two post-constitutional elements, primarily:

1. The American Security State [ASS], consisting of the Pentagon and what we call the Deep State, and

2. The American Social Security System [ASSS], consisting of the biggest “domestic” budgets, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — and closely allied programs.

Between ASS and ASSS, Americans are put into subject status, serviles to a bureaucratic and military order. 

Both would have to be demolished for Americans to be free.

twv

To repeat a suspicion first aired by me in 2020: the reason we have had as many COVID deaths as we did (and they may not be as many as the America’s official tallies say) is that government, media and the pharmaceutical industry suppressed discussion and implementation of traditional and seat-of-pants therapeutics and standard emergency doctoring in order to legally allow for the fast-tracking of “vaccines” that did not work as billed.

In addition to blaming Fauci and Birx and the above-mentioned culprit institutions, the chief focus of blame must go to Wanna-Be Messiah Donald J. Trump, and then to his most ardent haters, the mobs of Trump-hating Democrats, and their elitist pol whip-masters, who found a way to leverage the pandemic over-reaction into a clever swamping of the electoral system to install a demented old nabob pervert into the White House.

The perfidy here is tremendous, and I blame them all. The charge is mass murder, perhaps genocide. And culpability accrues to Biden voters as well, perhaps, to future Trump voters.

A lot of people have a lot of soul-searching to do.

twv

Be sure to send in your dollars so that the Democratic Party can install more brain-damaged individuals into the Imperial City’s “sacred halls of democracy” to rule over us just as the plutocrats demand.

If you make a case against a public group for advocating and working towards a goal that you think most people would be against, if it were “up for a vote,” and they call you a “conspiracy theorist” for making the charge, there’s a good bet that there is an actual conspiracy involved in the background, which you cannot see.

But remember: they — the media, the partisans who support the plan, the usual “intellectuals” — brought up conspiracy. This is a tell. They would support it if it were a conspiracy, and they may themselves be in on the scheme.

I’ve identified more than one of these quasi-conspiracies in the recent past. The Great Reset is a case in point:

But is it a conspiracy?
Well, it’s been out in the open. So: no.
But then notice something: the people who have brought up the alarm about this “open” policy advocacy and planning have repeatedly been called “conspiracy theorists.” And, therefore, are regarded commonly as fringe, as nutty. Examples include Glenn Beck (with a new book out on the subject, I hear) and the indefatigable Alex Jones.
This calumny marginalizes opposition to the policy (The Great Reset), insulating it from criticism — or even open discussion. It means that people generally can ignore the process of fascification.
So, I’d call the Davos-devised, globalist Great Reset a “quasi-conspiracy.” Its openness is obscured by psy-op.

And it is one of many reasons I no longer freak out when someone brings up actual conspiracies. Methinks the establishment doth protest too much.

twv