Archives for category: Ideological currents

…a year ago on Facebook….

Much of today’s political tribal warfare strikes me as superficial and stupid, and my friends here on Fb and elsewhere no doubt often note that I sport no great respect for most participants, especially the movers at the top, but also anyone who is relentlessly partisan.

One reason is that I do not think very many people reason their way into their ideologies. Reason appears later in the filiation of ideas, as rationalization. And of course it does to some extent with me, too. But I read Jefferson, Locke, Nozick, Plato, Nietzsche, Peirce and a lot of political philosophy and economics and even sociology and anthropology in my teens before I adopted my current perspective. So my occasional gloating is rationalized on the excuse of past reason. (And in my defense I never have really stopped reading or reasoning.)

So what is really behind political ideological “identification”? It is “tribal,” yes, but more important is that it is sexual.

Usually I bring up the religious nature of political ideology, but a few of my friends may note that I not irregularly bring up sex.

Why?

Well — It is almost all about sex.

And honor.

Sexual honor is a main standard of hierarchy legitimation.

Which is why people take it all so personally. Why is Trump so awful? He is sexually icky! Why is he so great? He is just so tough and impressive! Sure, ideological discord sure looks like it should be seen as a technical policy matter — at least from a superificially reasonable perspective. But it is not. Because fundamentally it is really about sex, family, work, and honor, and the idealized styles of same.

It always has been, and probably always will be, about Our Sex versus Theirs. “We do sex right” while “They do sex wrong.”

And this is why leftism, hollowed out by the failure of so many socialist and technocratic programs, now is reduced to a husk of thought, obsessed with gender and trans activism and things like that. Because all the left really has left is the defense of non-heterosexual sexual activity and its lurking-in-the-background anti-natalism. Meanwhile, the right is on the verge of reviving a defense of full-blown heteronormativity. Wait for it, wait for it….

I find this rather funny. A comedy of ideas reduced to sex farce.

Time to read Tom Sharpe again.

N.B. A few weeks ago I read Sharpe’s latest
Wilt sequel. It was not very relevant to this subject, alas.
Perhaps The Gropes’ll be more relevant.

“Overuse of vaccines will drive the development of viruses that are able to evade vaccination.”

“The people that will suffer from this naïve, inappropriate policy of global universal forced vaccination when the potent virus escaped mutants develop will be those people at high risk, the people who most need the vaccine.”

Malone appearing on Jimmy Dore’s show.

Dr. Robert Malone, initial developer of the mRNA vaccine technology, basically (but not explicitly) backing up Geert Vanden Bossche’s fear of massive immune escape driven by universal vaccination with a limited-utility vaccine.

He goes on to say that he believes this technology can be good, but only if targeted at specific populations. Previously, he had noted that forced universal vaccination goes against everything he was taught about bioethics and proper, moral medical practice, which entirely rests upon informed consent. Everyone, he says, has the right to reject medical treatment.

I am only 17 minutes in, and cannot watch the whole thing right now. But Dr. Malone — whom if you have been following the subject* is almost certainly known to you — provides an important perspective on the current contagion and immediate over-reaction by governments and the karen class.

As all my friends know, I hazard that the current pandemic response is revolutionary: a psy-op, as well as an act of war by China and the elites against the American and world population. I also believe that . . . oh, well, you know what I suspect . . . that the new fascism has arrived, that Democrats are establishing it with lip-smacking glee at their new-found grip on power, and that all you who parrot the psy-op slogans (the CDC’s clever-but-evil assurance that the jabs are “Safe, effective, and free!”) are behaving like (and are the moral equivalent of) those Weimar Germans who saw hope in the chancellorship of You-Know-Who.


I hope I don’t understate things. I believe it is evil to promote universal vaccination with experimental technology whose utility is diminishing right before our eyes during the rollout.

If you spread the idea of universal vaccination, you are not merely wrong, you are morally wrong, and should stop. You don’t need to reject all vaccines or the idea of widespread use of some vaccines. You just need to look at the risks and look at standard Hippocratic practice to know that you are morally wrong to demand others “get the jab.”


Yesterday I shared on social media Richard Dolan’s excellent discussion of the current situation:

My only disagreement with Dolan is his underplaying of China’s role.

But be that as it may, we are now seeing the Therapeutic State, which Thomas Szasz warned about for decades — he saw its emergence in institutional psychiatry — come into its own as a totalitarian global order. The New World Order as prescribed by billionaires and Deep State operatives like George Herbert Walker Bush and “crazed futurists” is being established right now.

Dolan thinks there is hope, that we have time to stop it. I won’t be the one to dash that hope. For now.

twv

Government has always been eager to save you from the problems it has caused.

Now, with gain-of-function research proved under NIH’s aegis, we know this is quite literally true regarding the pandemic.

The only way to break free of statism’s ratcheting circular non-argument is to openly disbelieve and to mock government officials and disobey their orders.

“The state is the coldest of all cold monsters, everything it possesses it has stolen and every word out of its mouth is a lie.”

Nietzsche’s great observation, from memory.

Supporting state coercion because you are afraid of a disease the government gave you is to be a pathetic weasel, unfit for civilized discourse: you should be shunned, not praised.

Don’t be a weasel. Don’t be a slave. Break free of the slaver’s mill, which goes round and round and round and breaks you.

A Facebook friend gave me push-back for this:
Stirring up fears is certainly a recurring pattern in electoral politics, and democratic practices are, to varying degrees, everywhere flawed, but why, several generations on from representative government being seriously attempted, is it still part of entirely normal discourse to regard “the State” (hence any state) as wholly other?

My response:
It is a system with its known properties, and I don’t regard it as wholly other. It is in some sense a representation of a certain type of human soul, one we all sometimes also represent: the repackaging of vice as virtue. I do not regard it as wholly other from humanity. Though I do regard it as something wholly other from me. I am not the State. I mostly criticize the states that say I am theirs. I try to get those who are in my same pickle to stop thinking of the State as their Savior, and see it for its actual qualities, and consider, where we can find them, alternatives.

Facebook, Timo Virkkala’s personal page, September 12, 2021 — whence hails all the squibs in today’s blogpost.

Why would you believe anything from people who suppress debate? Why would you trust the expertise of those who will not honestly respond to criticism?

None of the information we are told is reliable, much of what has been said as official truth has been proven to be lies, and the people who push all this ”information” couple it with draconian policy that just so happens to advance their their careers and their class at the expense of the non-professional majority. The whole pandemic has been managed as if to show the extremity of Franz Oppenheimer‘s theory of The State as an exploitation system, coupled with Molinari’s Terrorism theory of the State, and explanations of special interest politics by Pareto, Mises, Buchanan and others. Going in, I was deeply suspicious because I was more than aware of the possibilities for abuse by “experts.” I was not suspicious enough.

And now comes forced vaccination of a vaccine that cannot possibly induce herd immunity, and may very well induce immune escape.

But it is a good way to end the republic. So there is that.


We are told to believe things all the time that stink of a lie from the beginning, but which people just blithely accept.

One such story? That Seal Team Six killed Osama bin Laden and threw his body into the ocean so that it wouldn’t cause problems.

Yeah, right. That makes sense.

A more likely scenario? One of Osama’s lookalike doubles was discovered, and the Barack Obama administration decided to tie up a “loose end” in the war on terror. So they sent in soldiers not to arrest the man — that would have left things quite untied — but to shoot him, and then they got rid of the DNA evidence so to not show what happened.

Maybe this was the moment that I stopped believing any official story. Because I bought the 9/11 explanations as they came at us fast and furious, and for a long time. But the Osama bin Laden assassination was a dumb story. If true, that makes Obama look like a cretin. He was many things, and many things bad, but he was not a cretin.

Then again, people bought the story, so. . . . Reality looks more and more like a very bad paranoid movie, one where even your greengrocer is a conspirator.


The President declared that the unvaxxed in workplaces put the vaxxed at risk.

This either shows you how bad the vaxxes are, or that the president just wants an excuse for tyranny.


I shared a thought from last year today.

Credulity. “Being a mark.” The study of how cons are pulled off should then be applied to policy discussion in modern times.

The current con job that has been rolled out worldwide is to force vaccination onto people, even when it is obvious it would not help them, even when it would hurt them. You know, “to save other people.” You know you are talking to a con artist when he narrows the spread of options, focusing tightly onto an issue and never bringing in obvious and quite salient factors.

Re: vaccination? When they don’t talk about natural immunity and when they push vaccination on the immunodeficient. These vaxxers, then, are either con artists or the deluded-by-same, and spreading their idea pathogens “rationally.” What I remember most about 2020 is how governments ginned up fear but never once advised people to eat healthy, get plenty of sunshine, take the apt vitamin and mineral supplements, and exercise. This really is the marker. If there’s a contagion spread by breath, and they tell you to stay indoors, they are probably evil.

Other clues: they suppress debate and information-sharing and curb the search for treatments. When they scorn a treatment as, say, “horse de-wormer” or just unapproved, and then demand everyone accept jabs of experimental, under-studied drugs made in tandem with gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, then the level of psy-op has gone beyond the madness of crowds level. We are dealing with more than just the gullible.

What would we call it?

Please excuse me if I speculate about civilizational death wish.

A friend commented on the above:
In addition to all their civilization ending death wishes, the normies have absolutely no understanding of immune function and its importance to dealing with v viruse. There are numerous immune related topics to which they respond as if I were explaining the same subjects to my cat. They do not understand that the deadly ARDS stage of lung clogging is the result of an impaired immune systems’ over-reaction to the virus. Therefore, they did not understand the importance of immune boosting to preclude that phenomenon. They don’t understand that immune boosting occurs with high doses of vitamin D3, vitamin C and zinc along with HCQ and/or quercetin. They don’t understand that ivermectin is safe and has antiviral properties. Therefore, they do not understand the importance and efficacy of early treatments. They don’t understand that the vaccine is not an antibiotic that simply kills the virus. I could go on and on because they understand nothing about the medical science aspects of the virus and the illness that it causes. Whenever any of these points are made even with a peer reviewed medical study, their response 98% of the time is a laughing emoji.

Bob Roddis, Facebook, September 13, 2021.

I’ve known this all my life. Its play in in-group hierarchies and out-group marginalization is what led me to consider political philosophy.

I never bought into the idea that government is primarily established and maintained to provide unequivocal public goods, benefitting all. I have always known that human being are far more warped than that, and that government provides a perfect machinery for advantaging a few at the expense of the many, and then churning the issue and doing it for a different set of exploiter/exploited. This was obvious to me at age 14. Why it is not obvious to everyone puzzles me.

Maybe it was my sensitivity to small betrayals by friends in school that led me to a realistic view of human nature.


The demented president of the federal union of states, humiliated by his own false assurances and lies about the Afghanistan pull-out, is trying to fix his plummeting approval ratings by sparking the ultimate Us vs. Them panic. His expressions of disgust for those who refuse to vax up, in the context of a witlessly mad and madly spooked population, may prove the uncorking of the shaken bottle of our civil war. “Our patience is wearing thin.”

This could be the modern equivalent of Goebbel’s Beer Hall Putsch speech of November 9, 1938.

Goebbels spoke in [Hitler’s] place and announced to those assembled the news of the diplomat’s death. Then he reported on the antiJewish manifestations that had erupted in Kurhesse and Magdeburg-Anhalt, adding that Hitler, after hearing his ideas, had decided that the party should do nothing either to help prepare or organize such demonstrations. However, he added, should such outbursts take place spontaneously, no attempt ought to be made stop them.

Stefan Kley, “Hitler and the Pogrom of November 9/10, 1938,” Yad Vashem: The World Holocaust Remembrance Center.

…that Nazis saw themselves as good, and advanced their cause with moral fervor

From historian Tom Woods; my yellow mark:

I agree with Tom. The regularity with which normal people on my social media feeds express murderous wishes against people they disagree with — in this case regarding a non-vaccine that doesn’t work well, has many negative side effects that they refuse to look into and about which they eagerly suppress debate and information, and almost always excluding allowances for standard medical truths like natural immunity — portends a grave moral calamity coming.

I believe many people are giving themselves wholly unto evil. They are preparing for genocide, like Germans did with hygiene laws.

My biggest fear, though, is a bit different: that it is the vaccinated themselves who will die, in great numbers, as a result of micro-clotting, myocarditis, and other effects of under-studied and pushed-through-the-mill Big Pharma products that the president is trying to make universally mandatory.

I’ll define evil for you if you need it.


The masses of our species, even highly educated people, do not seem to see the danger here. It is almost as if they forgot the history that has had the most effect on our epoch, the history of the Third Reich. Or maybe it is the case that they never were taught the crucial lesson, that the post-Weimar Germans thought of themselves as good people, advancing their cause with moral fervor.

And this is where I find most people, of all walks of life and of every ideology, deficient. They seem not to understand that morality itself can be a source of pernicious influence. The word “moralistic” is a term of opprobrium for a reason, but it is worse than that. The word is too weak to describe what a people in moral panic can do to each other.

Maybe I am obsessed with this aspect of human nature for personal reasons. I noticed it when young. It came to loom large in my moral imagination as I encountered actual political philosophy. And my own form of moral zeal has long been governed by a distrust of zealotry.


Surtout point de zèle.

Above all, avoid zeal.

Talleyrand, translated by Hugh Percy Jones. Samuel Butler’s personal motto.

Zealotry becomes mighty peculiar when the subject is forced medical practice, however.

The bizarre nature of the propaganda gets pretty weird. This, as it appeared on my Facebook-promoted social media feed, is . . . odd.

“The mRNA cannot change your DNA, they only deliver information.”

We all know that DNA is information, right? That “mRNA” stands for “messenger RNA,” and that we still do not know how long the special protein that these new therapeutics produce, mimicking one aspect of the novel coronavirus. How will the instructions last in the body after injection, where the proteins go, what they do in organs like the brain and the uterus, what the long-term effects are? And so much more.

Further, we all realize that “immune response” can be bad? Right? That this is why some diseases kill? Too much of an immune response.

And we now learn that these ’new’ ’vaccines’ are much less effective against the so-called ’Delta variant’ than against the alpha and beta variants that started out the pandemic. That is why so many who have taken the jab are getting the disease. And . . . don’t get me started on the possibilities here. But, why do I even raise questions? Most people just want to believe in their Savior, the Therapeutic State, and in Big Pharma and Dr. Fauci and all the rest. It is the new religion. There is no place for heretics once the people become a mob and the religion has state power.

And when State and Mob unite during a panic, look out.


A therapeutic concoction, like morality itself, works according to the principle of hormesis: careful dosage is required. We know that panicked mobs take the moralism medicine to extremes. A panic is no time to shift protocols. Same, it seems to me, for a new, under-studied “vaccine”: do we really know the dosage at which it might best work? Is a pandemic the best time to deliver an experiment to . . . all of the people, and then talk of merely “booster shots” when the therapeutic ceases to work as billed?

In economics as in medicine, the rule is that everything has costs, including all good things. Every policy that you propose faces trade-offs, and all touted good medicines induce negative side-effects. In policy or therapy, when someone shills a cure but talks only about its beneficial effects, considering costs only in not using it, that shill is a con artist.

This applies to nearly every pro-“vaccination” argument during this pandemic. If you will not discuss the possible negatives openly and honestly, allowing for extended inquiry and public testing of data, you are engaging in base rhetoric, irresponsible propaganda.

Nearly everyone in government is a propagandist, these days, failing as indicated above, and has given themselves wholly to evil.

twv

AN ADDENDUM ABOUT SOME RELEVANT DATA:

The worldwide death rate for 2020 was a little less than the death rate for 2015. The death rate for 2018 was 7.546.

It had been falling for my whole life time. It was 17.13 the year I was born.

The U.S. death rate was 8.88 last year, and 9.416 the year I was born.

The death rate is the number of deaths per 1,000 of the population per year.

To understand population, the death rate must be contrasted with the birth rate. The U.S. birth rate was 11.99 for 2020, and 23.257 the year I was born.

The effects on COVID on the population appears hardly as a blip, unless the U.N. revises figures for last year. The death rate had started its upward trend the year before, and, in the U.S., a few years earlier, in 2009.

Photo: Ralf, Flickr, some rights reserved

Is Socialism the cousin of Communism?

. . . as answered on Quora. . . .

Economist Yves Guyot was puzzled by this, too. So he consulted the literature and the politicians who promoted one or the other or both. Here is what he wrote in Socialistic Fallacies (1910), about Marx and Engels’ infamous word choice:

They chose “communism” because the word “socialism” had been too much discredited at the time, but they subsequently resumed it, for the logical conclusion of all socialism is communism. The word “collectivism,” says Paul Lafargue, was only invented in order to spare the susceptibilities of some of the more timorous. It is synonymous with the word “communism.” Every socialistic program, be it the program of St. Mandé, published in 1896 by Mr. Millerand, which lays down that “collectivism is the secretion of the capitalist régime,” or that of the Havre Congress, drawn up by Karl Marx, and carried on the motion of Jules Guesde, concludes with “the political and economic expropriation of the capitalist class and the return to collective ownership of all the means of production.

These are terms of art, and some of the art is subterfuge. The general tenor of all socialistic thought is the replacement of private property and free exchange with public property and a command economy.

What we call it is less important than identifying its dangers.

twv

Confession: An astounding amount of 2020’s and 2021’s public discussion of virology and epidemiology has struck me as novel. Maybe that’s what made the “novel coronavirus” so novel: the discussion surrounding it was itself novel. People who should know what they are talking about — and by this I mean doctors and scientists and science bureaucrats and writers on the science beat — generally yammered on in ways that defied what I had learned in previous years.

Concession: It has been somewhat disorienting. Not being a scientist, the novelties “felt” wrong, but not being a genius, I often had trouble remembering the precise concepts that were being flouted. My limitations were evident from the beginning.

But one has to follow one’s nose and not just kowtow to the CDC or the quasi-Communists who run China. One has to do a little research.

I confess: I have done as little as possible. As soon as the experts began flip-flopping and engaging in outright lies, I did not bother to dig deep. When bullshitters pile it on, one doesn’t need a shovel, one needs a hose. Spray.

I concede: It has been interesting to watch so many smart people — including doctors — just fall into line and suppressing any acknowledgement of the obvious b.s.

Now, politically this has been fascinating, since the actual rolling out of mitigation to the new disease has been excessively political, driven by politics, guided by politics, and leveraged for politics. This is so obvious I have found it hard to take anyone innocently defending mainstream media narratives about the disease seriously. I now routinely roll my eyes at many of my own odd cohort of libertarians. Conservatives have been as disappointing as usual, and “liberals” (none exist in herds any longer) have doubled down on credulity and deception.

My respect for humanity has gone down about nineteen notches.

But, as compensation — and to offset any late-onset pride — my own personal foibles also have become more evident than ever. I have not cared enough about humanity to do the deep research the situation seems to demand. I could apologize, but to whom? Who deserves it?

twv

The odd thing about this m&m meme (post) is that the statement is completely inapposite.

The subject in question is allegedly whether women are overly sexualized “in media.” And we are given a funny m&m ad.

It is a candy being sexualized, not a woman.

Sure, it is a candy being sexualized to look like a woman dressing/acting “sexy” (sexily) — but it is still understood as a candy.

No one denies that some women (or most women some of the time) try to look sexy using the cultural norms we are used to. That is not the claim under consideration, here, though, is it? @fricknook’s m&m post doesn’t prove any point worth making.

Are women overly sexualized “in media”? Or, do women better succeed in media when they sexualize themselves? (Better question, eh?) Ask Ana Kasparian. (See for yourself.)

But candies being sexualized in a feminine as opposed to masculine way is mainly just comic. It proves nothing about “too much.”

twv

Michael Rectenwald

“As any Marxist can tell you, ideology can blind one to the insights that might disrupt one’s political adhesions, often against one’s own best interests,” explains Michael Rectenwald in a recent article for the Mises Wire. “Only it was Marxist ideology itself that blinded me.”

Rectenwald, professor emeritus from New York University, has provided a concise intellectual confession in this piece, and yes, “How a Marxist of Twenty-Five Years Became a Misesian Libertarian” is worth reading.

His own experience is far different from mine. Not having pursued an academic career, my first-hand experience with the academic left has been limited to “the funny papers,” as we used to say about real life and mainstream news reporting. He was intimate with it, and deep, deep, deep . . . into the muck of it.

While I was grew up in a mixed-political, evangelical Christian household, and then set on my quasi-career circling literary libertarianism (with occasional forays into advertising), Michael Rectenwald gave up his lucrative advertising career to become an academic, where his literary interests were . . . perverted, you might say. “An antiliterature agenda had advanced so far in English studies by this time that at one conference, a professor of English at Berkeley decried the fact that other attendees had presented papers about novels. How regressive!”

There is a lot of ‘anti-’ this and that in the leftist Academy.

Rectenwald flirted with (and was rejected by) many varieties of “Marxism,” but, as he explains, “something within [him] incessantly rebelled against the dogmatism.”

I early on latched to liberty, not “social justice,” but something within me resisted the air of certainty that certain labels suggest. A friend called my position “agnarchism.”

Thankfully, after Rectenwald’s notorious brouhaha with woke de-platforming, he read Ludwig von Mises’ Socialism, seeing the logic of Mises’ 

  • attack on Marxist “polylogism” (one logic for ‘the bourgeoisie,’ another for the proletariat!), 
  • defense of consumer sovereignty, and 
  • Mises’ brilliant explication of socialism’s biggest failure, the state’s inability to calculate economic value without prices.

So he finally liberated himself from Marxian shackles.

This is worth confronting, because America is right now getting a double-barrelled exposure to several very dangerous forms of Marxism.

Though Rectenwald’s account would probably interest me even had he not come close to my position in politics, his “Misesian libertarianism” is more than welcome. But note: I wouldn’t say I am a “Misesian libertarian,” exactly, mainly because Herbert Spencer has had a much bigger influence on me — as have Gustave de Molinari and my footman guide to political philosophy, Robert Nozick, whose Anarchy, State and Utopia was the first work of modern phiosophy I ever read. But, nevertheless, Nozick’s “framework for utopia” and Molinari’s non-anarchy quasi-anarchy (panarchy) put me awfully close to Mises’ (dare I say it?) Liberalism!

Which is now libertarianism. More or less.


Note: Lee Waaks and I interviewed Michael Rectenwald last year:

Calling others commies? It’s problematic; sure.

But there may be a rationale.

One way to designate someone as a communist despite their protests could be to define any leftist as a communist if he or she supports the psy-op subversion planks as explained by Yuri Bezmenov.

You may say you are, for example, a mere social democrat. But you also are obsessed with the issues that the Soviets materially and operationally advanced explicitly within their ranks as a means to export to the West to destroy your own country. So, despite any protest on your part, I’ll call you a commie.

Unless “Soviet” is accepted as fascistic and not commie.

But I think we should cede to extremists their own preferred terms, at least sometimes. Bear with me.

For example: I cede to anarchists of the anti-authoritarian violent-revolt variety — those who breed chaos and civil unrest, murder and mayhem and propaganda by the deed — with the term “anarchism,” and do not accept it as a term of peace. So, no matter how fascistic socialism and communism tend to become, I think we should give them their term, but with the pejorative twist: commie.

Commie is better than “communist,” actually, since communism has something to do with communes and communities, while “commie” is explicitly associated with the advance of subversion of liberal order.

I am a liberal, politically, above all else, I guess. And commies hate liberals. And liberals should hate commies.

twv

The thing about Democrats and guns has been obvious since I was a kid. On the left, we commonly find the wish to blame anyone but the criminal. This became a joke in the 70s: ‘Society’s to blame; let’s arrest society.’ Now we have joke disciplines to push this sort of nonsense, like ‘Critical Race Theory.’

This is the result of sympathy, perhaps, sympathy unbounded by reason, but whatever the cause, it is generally a part of the leftist mindset.

THE OUTSIDER MUST BE THE VICTIM TO BE DEFENDED
or
THE OUTSIDER IS THE HERO TO SAVE US

That is the leftist myth. In art, this is often expressed in merely identifying heroic or victimized outsiders and celebrating them. Note that this core leftist notion is not about individuals carrying on civilized standards — or the defense of civilization — when shorn of usual social support by being thrown into the state of nature (this is a very right-wing artistic theme, prevalent in Westerns and SF), it is about how outsiders are created by bad insiders, and ‘therefore’ we mustn’t fight the outside threats but our very own selves, our in-group hierarchy especially.

Now, sometimes it is indeed the case that insiders create their outsider enemies. But once created, one may disagree on what to do. Truth is, most victims are not created by our in-group but by some other group or individual. There are three major types of malefactors that engage in victimization on a regular basis: criminals, mobs, and states. I hold to what I think of as a common-sense truth that

  1. anyone can do good as an individual, or do bad as a criminal;
  2. any group can do fine work either as families, communities, firms, etc., or even move about harmlessly in crowds, but any group can become a dangerous mob all-too easily;
  3. states bound by a rule of law are better than those not so limited, and the less encumbered by customary law, the more states are apt to victimize individuals within and without their designated territories.

A right-wing mindset sees states as absolutely necessary to keep individuals from becoming criminal and crowds from becoming mobs. A left-wing mindset sees states as absolutely necessary to bringing in outsiders and mobs into the in-group, toppling the hierarchy and establishing the rule of ideologically pure leftists. Traditional state concerns are uninteresting to leftists largely because traditional state concerns are right-wing, in-group defense and hierarchy maintenance, which the leftist gesture sees as inherently evil.

So it is no surprise that leftist and centrist technocrats tolerate leftist mobs — that is a source of their power and purpose. And it is no shock to see leftist and centrist technocrats tolerate outrageous criminality, for the criminals were (their story tells them) created by the evil conservative hierarchies and by insider oppression of outsiders.

Which is why these technocrats repeatedly lean to the strategy of “anarcho-tyranny,” where the power of the state is directed away from violent criminals and to actually creating and oppressing peaceful people in the enforcement of regulations (and this is one of several ways in which left-wingers become right-wing: they perform the very acts upon members of the in-group that they say the in-group performs on outsiders).

On the common-sense level, leftists are nuts. But there are cases where their story is true, and their gesture across the social landscape (defend the outsiders against insiders, to revolutionize the in-group) is the right one.

The problem is, people infected by the memeplexes of right-wingedness and left-wingedness cannot judge actual situations on the basis of actual facts and operating trends. They get stuck in their myths and rites and gestures, and can only perform stereotypical acts. They are disempowered from even conceptualizing actual problems.

Now, in times of crisis, increasing numbers of people jump ship, move rapidly from left to right and from right to left. We will see a lot of this in the near future. It is not necessarily a good sign, because it is mainly panic, and because the responsible “middle way” is often the last thing anyone wants. After all, in times of crisis, responsibilitarian policy appears as too difficult — just as, in the period leading up to the crisis, it appeared impossible.

But Biden trying to pretend that today’s criminality is caused by gun manufacturers, for example, is pure stupid evasion — and just the kind of evasion we expect from the left. In this, he is a sign of leftist intransigence and leftist assumptions among even ‘centrist’ Democrats. He cannot yet conceive that the best way to respond to criminals is to fight them and crush them, not make their criminality just marginally more difficult.

Or, in the case of Democrats today, make criminality easier while cracking down on free speech of “hate groups” . . . like white people who do not vote Democrat.

twv