After the Freedom of Information Act was established, government officials were surprised by one of the most persistent sets of FOIA requests: UFO inquiries. Though not all requests have been met with release of information, an astounding amount of documentation has indeed been made public on UFOs.
From my reading, “UFO skeptics” ignore most of this.
Here’s the deal, though: FOIA’d documents include memos to and from top brass in the military for over seven decades: generals, admirals, etc. Also released have been many UFO reports from military bases, particularly nuclear missile installations. These make for astounding reading.
I’m more than willing to concede that these are all fakes, as apparently UFO “skeptics” must insist. But then I insist that we hold the military and bureaucracies into account for faking documentation of a UFO presence on the planet that is not there.
It’s one way or the other: the Deep State has been mostly hiding and lying about UFOs for nearly a century, or, instead, it has been faking UFOs, “pretending” to hide them, and then “revealing” their fakeries in leaked and FOIA-released documentation which then never receives official discussion.
It’s a deep psy-op either way.
The FOIA-released information either shows a puzzling and perhaps alarming UFO presence on the planet, or the released documents are fakes and elements within the Deep State want SOME of us to believe in weird SOMETHINGS, leaving us to speculate wildly.
Either way: conspiracy.
This is indeed a conspiracy theory. But it is more than that. It is a logical puzzle, the evidence pointing to one kind of conspiracy or another. The evidence is such that no other conclusion is viable.
For UFO “skeptics” not to confront this strikes me as a shameful cowardice and dishonesty.
But one of the things that most interests me about the psy-op (whichever one it is) is how it divides society into in-groups and out-groups. It has been a point of cultic behavior in academic circles, for example, where inquiries are routinely ridiculed, and disbelief in UFOs has been used as a shibboleth.
This makes academics — and all who pass through the academy — morally compromised in interesting ways, and has contributed to the current ideological division in society.
But it has been part of the mechanism by which the Deep State has controlled the minds of intellectuals, and increased their allegiance levels.
The extent to which these effects were planned, or just “evolved,” would be worth careful study.
But of course we cannot trust academics with this, for they are still deeply, deeply compromised. Morally. Intellectually. And in the realm of manners. The military-academic-industrial complex, of course, is wholly unreliable in terms of truth. Secrecy and disinformation are integral to these enterprises.
I contend that UFOs are only the most intellectually puzzling element of this disinformation complex. I also believe that the medical-industrial complex is also now deeply into disinformation, even as its mavens complain about the dangers of “misinformation” by those outside its tight embrace.
Also, it is worth mentioning that the dribs and drabs of “UFO disclosure” now ongoing from the Pentagon have been released in such small bundles of information that it allows those intellectuals who have prided themselves on their intellectual purity by scoffing at UFO reports to continue their campaign of ridicule, if at muffled levels. Thus the disclosure remains a psy-op, stringing along of past useful idiots — the useful ones being those who call all who take UFO reports seriously “UFO nuts,” the inutile ones being those who believe every last allegation and report. But those useless idiots are also useful, in a way, for they allow the useful idiots to puff themselves up with pride, and thereby support the Deep State and its insidious presence in our pseudo-republic.
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.
I’ve been annoyed with Tulsi Gabbard’s past and repeated use of “aloha” massaging, but maybe I should judge it apt for a Hawaiian, and acknowledge that by her use of it she is reviving the traditional American principle of federalism, asserting a substantive localism into America’s pernicious nationalist culture that afflicts both left and right.
So, ‘Aloha’ all around. Except I am from the Evergreen State, the Chinook State, and our motto is Al-Ki — ‘by and by.’ Which means, I think: ‘maybe some day.’
Now that’s a motto, up there with ‘festina lente’!
I am a conspiracy theorist. I theorize about conspiracies. I construct and appraise conjectures about conspiracies. I am interested in the data that might falsify conspiracy conjectures. But I am also interested in the data and arguments that falsify (or at least undermine the applicability of) invisible hand theories.
Indeed, I generally oppose the meta-theories about conspiracies that are frequently promoted by invisible hand theorists. I am underwhelmed by them. I also consider them as possible expressions of an adaptive strategy to the conscious stigmatization of conspiracy theories, which have been promoted by bureaus of our federal government’s intel agencies. Which we know exist and which we know engage in stigmatization as a means of social control.
I consider this all so obvious that my usual reaction to quick-react anti-conspiracy “skepticism” is eye rolls.
Something I used to engage in as an invisible hand theorist.
One reason I changed my mind is that I noticed my own prejudices, and who was most served by them.
This all being said, I recognize that much of stigmatization on these matters is an invisible hand process. Spontaneous, you might say.
This is a good beginning for the New Year, a serious discussion of UFOs and parapsychology. Eric Weinstein makes epistemic points that I’ve been making for six years, but most of my friends simply ignore. I share Weinstein not because I like him — I don’t know him, and he often borders on pomposity — but because maybe my friends will listen to him since they won’t confront my points. Weinstein’s basic attitudes are close to mine.
Clarke’s Third Law is in play here:
It has been really helpful, in my case, to have always existed in a political-cultural minority. I can easily believe that governments do some things well but not others, while generally opposing governments, and therefore contemplate competence in the keeping of secrets.
What I find odd are all my fellow individualists falling for fairly obvious psy-ops, and for continuing a long legacy of government-managed stigma to protect government secrets. This latter I judge to be spooky.
The Deal: I get ads for Jordan Peterson all the time on YouTube these days, for his new Daily Wire show.
The Good: Great violin theme; love it.
The Bad: But it means I hear the same JP soundbites over and over, and though I’ve generally been a fan of the man, his presence has become increasingly annoying. Maybe he’s just so resolutely serioso now. And increasingly conservative. He’s starting to really bug me, especially on soundbite repeat.
The Indifferent: Does he know that his bilateral color-asymmetric suit of the last few weeks is reminiscent of an old Fool costume?
The Worst: I know that subscribing to The Daily Wire would not stop the ads. Only paying Google would. And I Won‘t Do That.
When the New Atheist Movement became all the rage, after the events of 9/11/01, I was so jaded about the subject that I paid it scant attention. I was more than familiar with Richard Dawkins’s work, true enough, especiallyThe Selfish Gene, and was mildly interested in his new stance against not only Christianity but Islam. Few dared say negative things about Islam, so I considered him something of a hero. But not an awe-inspiring one.
The second major figure in the New Atheist Movement was Christopher Hitchens, my favorite socialist. Or quasi-ex-socialist. He was glib, a first-rate writer, fast on his feet — or tongue — and did a good job in debates. But his book God Is Not Greatsported what I thought of as such a horrible thesis — spelled out in one of its subtitles,How Religion Poisons Everything — that I had to distance myself a bit, no matter how atheistic I may be. Indeed am. Further, his reaction against “Islamofascism,” as he called it, led him to support the West’s jihad against Muslim countries, thereby stirring the nest and exacerbating the situation, or, as F. Marion Crawford put it long ago, “sew dragon’s teeth.” As I argued at the time, exactly the wrong policy: if Islam is so dangerous, best not to poke it over and over again.
The third figure in this movement is perhaps the most important, philosopher Daniel Dennett. But, as near as I could make out, Dennett suffered from being wrong on the issues in which he carved out somewhat unique positions. I was more a John Searle man.
The fourth “horseman” of this atheistic quartet, said to be so revelatory as to be “apocalyptic,” was Sam Harris. And he was my least favorite. He spoke well. He seemed thoughtful. He was obviously smart enough. But his most interesting positions were, like Dennett’s, ones in which he was clearly wrong. And, like Hitchens, his political stances seemed, uh, worse than reactionary: exacerbatory! So I never really paid him much attention.
But the man is influential. And he is a part of the “regressive” left, even if he wishes to see himself as against that movement.
Be that as it may, I mention my initial impressions of Harris early on in the latest LocoFoco podcast, featuring David Ramsay Steele:
Steele is preparing a book of “Critical Responses” to Sam Harris, so Lee Waaks invited Mr. Steele to talk with us on the LocoFoco Netcast, which you can view on Rumble:
I encourage you to go to Rumble and Locofoco.Locals.com and sign up for my feeds. Or even send me money, to encourage me to make more videos. Whereas I know I am just learning this craft, you have to admit that Lee’s and my guests are always interesting. Very interesting. Yes?
There is nothing particularly mysterious about the anti-diplomacy surrounding the Russia-Ukraine war, or, for that matter, the FTX scandal. When a ruling elite loses its intellectual bearings and what the ancient Chinese called “the Mandate of Heave” (but what we might call, loosely, the consent of the governed), it needs two things: money and an enemy.
Our ruling elites, which are largely “Democratic” — most civilian government employees are Democrats — know, now, only how to scam us, not to rule even close to wisely. The current situation shows it: inflation, supply chain problems, debt, war. The elites’ policies exacerbate (if not outright cause) each and every one of these disasters.
So they need an enemy to unite us against it.
The enemy chosen and nurtured: Russia.
The comedy is that Democrats have almost been compelled to build up Russia as an enemy ever since Obama mocked Romney for suggesting it.
The tragedy is that it could lead to World War III and the destruction of our civilization and much of the life on the planet.
America’s actual enemy — less comic, more ominous, and chosen by Democrats for decades as an ally to build up — is, of course, China. Russia serves as a cover for all the past corrupt dealings with China, which have been going on since the Clinton Administration at least.
The Ukraine defense, which Democrats have backed as if Democracy Itself were on the line (they’ve said as much, but then they always do), has been funded with billions in aid. But this past week the weirdest financing effort was revealed: “the collapse of Sam Bankman-Fried’s crypto empire” (as MSN’s MarketWatch put it) and the formalized bankruptcy of FTX, the cryptocurrency, and the key parts played by both the Ukrainian Government and American Democrat politicians.
Tucker Carlson drew the circlular flow chart, this week, where U.S. Government subsidies to Ukraine were put into FTX, and how FTX’s “genius” founder, Bankman-Fried, then turned that into “charity.” Which somehow includes tens of millions to Democrats for their mid-term election campaigns.
This over-shadows Iran-Contra and Bernie Madoff combined. It seems as if scripted for some dark comic epic, with even the financial culprit’s name being satirical: BANKMAN FRIED???? It’s as if the Norns have been slipping stitches while in stitches over an over-imbibing of ’shrooms.
Events are moving too quickly now to follow easily. The desperation of the players becomes obvious, now that Ukraine has bombed Poland hoping to up America’s (NATO’s) war footing to DEFCON-11.
But there’s no deep mystery. This is how elites and empires fall. With lies, financial corruption, and death all around.
People who want to rule other people are more dangerous than those who don’t. One problem with democracies is that they elicit leaders from all strata of society, and the most desirous ”to lead” are those with the strongest itch to rule. Over time and generations, more power accrues to narcissists and egoists and other shady people-pushers, and the spirit of ruling others suffuses whole populations, where greed and hatred and pride get covered over with the garlands and fig leaves of “morality,” but merely as disguise. So we have the desire for advancement encouraged, not curbed, by conscience — conscience becomes an excuse for outrageous enormities, and the people increasingly believe deeply perverse things, twisted.
Which is where we are at now.
“One idïôt is one īdîôt. Two īdíots are two ídïóts. Ten thousand ídíöts are a pòlitical party.” — Franz Kafka
A great “quote” that I stumbled upon in social media. But Kafka did not say this. The correct quote appears to be:
Fanfare, bandiere, parate. Uno stupido è uno stupido. Due stupidi sono due stupidi. Diecimila stupidi sono una forza storica. Leo Longanesi, Parliamo dell’Elefante: Frammenti di un Diario (1947).
The issues upon which I have most changed my mind in recent years are about how people handle “memes” (mimicked and repeatable behaviors) within institutions and organizations. I now believe there is no enormity a normal person in a privileged position in the academic, government, or medical realm will not help do, just so long as that person can go about calling him- or herself a ”good person” while retaining his or her position. They will fool themselves into thinking that the latest study must be correct (if it agrees with their political allegiances), censorship is free speech, or genocide is salvation. It will all be calculated in a series of nested marginal moral excuses, and they will send the Jews to the ovens, children to the castrator’s knife, dissidents to the gulags, and the farmers and their customers to starvation. The enormities of the 20th are now building up for an exciting and perhaps excruciating reprise. Though this time most of it will be covered over, a bit. The idea is to get the Jews to march into the ovens with eagerness; parents to sacrifice their children’s sexual futures with fervent hope of being ”in” while doctors receive their normal paychecks; dissidents to engage in self-shackling; and the farmers will be bought off, with their farms left to produce oil substitutes or . . . plastics . . . or open space for ”wildlife.”
So my medium-level alarmist predictions appear to be emerging as instantiations in reality. Remember all my arguments how insane a “vax“ policy would be in a new pandemic? I expected a number of negative outcomes. Here they come: excess deaths; mortalities labeled “unknown.” In one post, I guessed it’d be a clear pattern in three years. We’re one year in. The pattern is becoming fairly clear.
The malefactors at Facebook gave me a warning on fact checked pandemic info, but they are indeed liars, and they probably want you to die. Especially if you hold the wrong beliefs.
You see, humans are a cancer on the planet, and killing off a few billion is an entelechy buried deep within many moderns — leading to a death wish. Which nudges them at the margins of their consciences to commit genocide. An astounding thing.
Here is Paul Jacob on the subject, from his daily program:
The safety and efficacy of the coronavirus vaccines has been disputed from the beginning.
What this usually means is that those of a skeptical mind challenge the confidence of the pro-vax mantra — “safe and effective” ad nauseam — and, when they find stats that run counter to this official position, they publicize those stats. Then, major media outfits make a few carping criticisms of the new studies and quickly proceed to assuredly re-state as fact the original and now more-dubious propaganda.
Meanwhile, social media censors dissidents. And when more studies come out casting grave doubt on either the safety or the efficacy of the new drugs, those receive little public attention.
How Alex Berenson was treated is a good example of the methods of the orthodoxy. Take Wikipedia’s judgment: “During the coronavirus pandemic, Berenson appeared frequently in American right-wing media, spreading false claims about COVID-19 and its vaccines,” the article confidently runs. “He spent much of the pandemic arguing that its seriousness was overblown; once COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out, he made false claims about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.”
False claims! In olden times — why, it seems like just a few years ago — a major news and history resource would not baldly call some contentious matter “false” or “true.” It would state the claims and then let the counter-claims carry their own weight.
In the case of “the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines,” though, it has become clear: their efficacy wanes, diminishing quicker with each dose, leaving the unvaccinated with proportionally fewer infection and spreading events than the “boosted.”
The government has admitted that there are not infrequent sightings of anomalous UFOs (“UAPs”) that feature “the five observables”:
hypersonic speeds
instantaneous velocity
trans-medium travel
displaying stealth mode
positive lift
This admission — to Congress (what any president has been told is unknown) — blows the lid off of the Official Position from the Pentagon from the 1940s through the aughts. The scorn given de rigueur by academics to anyone who professes even mere agnosticism on the issue is now known to be either a cultic move to protect the dominant naturalistic paradigm, outrageously anti-scientific ignorance, or a lie.
The world may seem to be crazy, but this element of the crazy is at least understandably uncomfortable. And I reiterate what I’ve said before: the reason for the blanket of silence and prevarication directed (the evidence clearly suggests) by the CIA and the Pentagon is likely that it upsets two powerful groups: materialist scientists and religious people.
These two quotations remind me of Augustine’s confession of his younger days: “Lord, make me chaste, but not yet!” Communism is the holding of orgies by those who insist upon the ideal of celibacy.
“We are waiting for the withering away of the state . . . The highest development of state power in preparation of the preconditions for the withering away of state power — that is the Marxist formula. Is that ‘contradictory’? Yes it is ‘contradictory.’ But this contradiction is inherent in life and it completely mirrors the Marxist dialectic.’” —Joseph Stalin
“‘Don’t you want to abolish state power?’ Yes we do, but not right now. Why? Because domestic reaction still exists, because classes still exist. Our present task is to strengthen the people’s army, the people’s police, in order to protect the people’s interests.” —Mao
The Netflix show Midnight Mass:
was not based on F. Paul Wilson’s vampire novel of the same name;
is a vampire story where the word “vampire” is never used and the lore is not ever discussed (thus is a de facto “alternate history” story where Polidori and Bram Stoker never wrote their most famous works);
is the most religious-based vampire story I’ve yet encountered (the religion in this case being Catholicism);
is more “daring” in its religion-referencing than even Dracula 2000, which I regarded as terrific;
has one of the best vampires on screen I’ve ever seen;
has really good writing and acting throughout;
has the best hymn-singing finale to a TV show (that I can recall);
nevertheless ends with a sort Buddhist/pantheistic message, but it is
not as overtly anti-Christian as it often feels like; and, finally,
has a chilling, Nurse Ratchedy-type character in the oh-so-sanctimonious Bev Keane, played by the brilliant Samantha Sloyan. But all the actors were great, definitely not excepting Hamish Linklater, who plays the bloody (yes, this is apt) priest.
To repeat: anarchy is either a good name for something bad, or a bad name for something good.
The problem with “anarchism” is that it is defined, first and foremost, by utopians like this Twitter user:
There is no intrinsic human nature. Humans adapt to the societies in which they were born.
Capitalism teaches people that they must be evil and inconsiderate to succeed.
Take away capitalism and liberate the masses, and human nature will change with it.
— The Anarchist Turtle 🏴Ⓐ (@anarchoboognish) July 22, 2022
When Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari invented what today some call “libertarian anarchy” or “anarcho-capitalism,” he pointedly did not call himself an anarchist. He saw himself as a kind of liberal. “Anarchist” was reserved for the first people to homestead the term anarchy as a non-pejorative: Proudhon and Bakkunin and that ilk. Folks like “The Anarchist Turtle.”
Today, let’s respond to the propositions of this Twitter user:
There is indeed human nature, and one of its chief features is its ability to adapt to the environment, though with varying degrees of success, individual by individual, group by group.
Capitalism comes in several forms, but the core element of private property and market interaction does not teach people to be “evil and inconsiderate,” while the neo-mercantilist, statist versions do sometimes do that. What private property and markets encourage is service to others: if you don’t meet consumer demand, you fail.
“Take away capitalism” — how? By getting rid of private property and market cooperation? If you want to see the struggle of existence — society red-in-tooth-and-claw — have at it. One of the odd things about left utopians is their blindness to the basic temptation of human nature, to “defect,” to exploit or “get one over” on others, and that this is ultra-common where many people share a common resource. It’s not called The Tragedy of the Commons for nothing. And while humans do concoct and discover ways to avoid this tragedy sans private property or the State, these social mechanisms are not exactly free-wheeling “anarchy.”
What is it we really need “liberating” from? The need to work? Social pressure? Religion? Capitalism allows for human cooperation to flourish in the most astounding ways. Under expanded markets, whole blocs of the Third World have been brought up from dore poverty. I want more of that, not less.
But what’s my main beef with The Anarchist Turtle? “Human nature” doesn’t change, human behavior does. If you want to understand how our behavior changes according to circumstance and situation, study human nature. Don’t ball these concepts up. Which leftists like to do because, at bottom, most are Blank Slate/Tabula Rasa fantasists. They inhabit a world too irreal for me.
When I got interested in anarchism, in my teens, it was primarily to prevent warfare and mass exploitation. It wasn’t as a means of “liberating” “the People” from work or responsibility or all the difficulties with life. I was indeed concerned with bullying and tribal conflict, but I knew enough Big History to realize that getting rid of The State along with private property would just set us back to tribal and chiefdom organization: not my idea of liberation at all. And though I was fascinated by utopian experimentation, I never wanted to join any particular commune or “intentional community.” Families were enough along those lines.
But I did then and do now distrust and hate the Archons — the rulers behind the scenes and those in front of podia. They are liars and tempters [almost] all. They are always looking for ways to gain our servile compliance with their schemes, and they do so by enticing us into thinking we can both gain a special advantage and see ourselves as Good and Righteous.
I have much more to say about fighting the Archons — the dominations and powers — without falling into the goofy utopianism of “the anarchists.”
The self-fulfilling prophecy often rests on a more basic trap: the self-reinforcing policy.
You support a policy because you are alarmed at how awful x is, so you support policy A, which you say fights x. But policy A increases x. So when x increases, you double down on policy A. Demand more measures of an A-ish nature, and continued support of policy A. Because x!
This makes you a fool, of course, but most of us are fools about something, and it is impolite to call each other foolish, since there never would be an end to it. So, in politics, folly increases.
Here are some examples:
1. Low-skilled worker unemployment is bad, since it leads to crime, drug-use, family breakdown, and, of course, more unemployment. So, policy A: Raise the legal minimum wage rate! This of course increases unemployment, as economists have explained for two hundred years, requiring more state aid. But most people don’t listen to economists except when economists back up their prejudices. And since state aid is obviously designed to help the afflicted, we are not unreasonably distracted from noticing that policy A is responsible. Now focused entirely on intentions, not on means or results, when someone like me suggests getting rid of A, oh, the outcry! Raise A instead! This ensures more unemployment, more state aid, and a great deal of Pharisaic posturing. Forever and ever amen.
2. Terrorism is bad. Terrorists often come from foreign lands. So policy A: ‘let’s fight terrorists over there, not here!’ But bombing innocent weddings and children and the like in the War on Terror increases resentments that lead to terrorism here and elsewhere in the First World. But terrorism spurs resentment here as well, thus increasing support for policy A, the War on Terror. Which ramps up the violence, and. . . .
3. The latest contagion is bad. Undoubtedly. The standard way to deal with this is to quarantine the infected, isolate the at-risk population, and let the healthy part of the population get infected and handle the disease with their immune systems, and then build up herd immunity. But that is not a very woke way of doing things, so a new policy, let’s call it . . . A . . . would isolate the healthy population. Now, that is taking x seriously! Of course, we are now on a new course, and we aren’t concentrating on the at-risk populations, like those in nursing homes, and are even sending those who should be quarantined into nursing homes, leading to alarming death rates. This panics the proponents of the new policy A, so they demand . . . more of policy A, not the older policy, which is so passé — or should I say ‘pass-A’? The panicky folk demand evermore A, which prevents herd immunity. But when suppport for A diminishes, and a return to normalcy occurs, the number of cases of infection increase. Entirely to be expected, but it is ‘proof’ of a need for more A! So, A is re-introduced. Sure, it’ll decrease herd immunity and mean that more people will die later on, but hey: ‘at least we tried’!
Policies that reinforce themselves by their ‘failure’ are the favorite kind of policies of fools. Whole ideologies congeal around them. And certain unscrupulous people encourage them in full knowledge.
It is so easy to manipulate fools.
And since it is folly to tell fools of their folly — what is the percentage in that? — folly is self-reinforcing.
And it is my own folly that I persist, since there is a good chance that when they come to take me away to the new concentration camp — let’s call it camp A — many of the people I have called fools will shout huzzahs.
Rhetorical Question: “How did abortion get banned faster than assault weapons? Asking for all the victims of mass shootings.”
A. It didn’t. Abortion is not banned in these United States, and Dobbs did not make any abortion practice illegal.
B. “Assault rifles” are not easily definable — because the term is arbitrarily used as a synonym for “scary looking guns” — and even the ones that are “banned” are available.
C. Abortion, like mass shootings, are forms of homicide. The latter is illegal in every state, and some forms of abortion are illegal in some states — and all over Europe and elsewhere, too. But making a form of homicide illegal is not the same as making a specific instrument of lethality illegal. For an exact parallel between these issues, opponents of abortion would not be content to make abortion illegal, but would also make illegal drugs such as mifepristone and misoprostol, as well as speculums, suction catheters and suction machines, laminaria, and curettes. And other devices and drugs and instruments. “Suction catheters” and “suction machines” are probably the most “assault weapony” of these, but all of these are used — and more. I have never heard an anti-abortion advocate call for the prohibition of any of these, though back in the RU-486 days, this was on the table for a few minutes.
D. The comparison is witless.
E. Oh, and more people are killed by abortionists each year than by murderers using “assault weapons.” But we don’t see the bodies of the dead, and their stories do not get any play on the news, so we forget them. We never knew them. They are, to us, forever dead.
Wirkman Comment 