Archives for category: Facebook

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.
Books that just came into my library, or that I have just begun reading.

Two months ago or so, my little sister was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in its later stages. Though she had had a tough case of the COVID in 2020, the hospital required her to take one of the “vaccines.” She chose the Johnson & Johnson, and then, in early July she endured her first chemotherapy treatment. In eight days she was dead.

I have been as listless as many who have taken the pushed treatments, since. No desire to make a podcast or write anything of much importance. But the times are not waiting for me. The onslaught of medical tyranny is coming.

Last night, my dog woke me up in the middle of the night and I couldn’t get back to sleep. So I went on a binge of posting to Twitter and Facebook, doing little on Gab. My previous day’s Twitter foray was described as crazy by one Twitter follower:

I take my alarmist cue in part from seeing what is happening Australia and New Zealand and taking these societies as bellwethers. The tyrannies being set up there are quite horrific. I’ve been catching occasional news about it all, but one YouTuber — a fascinating and extremely odd gentleman going under the name Theoria Apophasis — has been engaged in a string of videos on the subject of Pandemic Over-Reaction Down Under:

Though things look grim, the logic of it all is so fractured that it is hard not to laugh. Somebody satirized the logic in a fine parody:

ABBOTT AND COSTELLO’S ‘WHO’S BEEN VACCINATED?’

Bud: ‘You can’t come in here!’

Lou: ‘Why not?’

Bud: ‘Well because you’re unvaccinated.’

Lou: ‘But I’m not sick.’

Bud: ‘It doesn’t matter.’

Lou: ‘Well, why does that guy get to go in?’

Bud: ‘Because he’s vaccinated.’

Lou: ‘But he’s sick!’

Bud: ‘It’s alright. Everyone in here is vaccinated.’

Lou: ‘Wait a minute. Are you saying everyone in there is vaccinated?’

Bud: ‘Yes.’

Lou: ‘So then why can’t I go in there if everyone is vaccinated?’

Bud: ‘Because you’ll make them sick.’

Lou: ‘How will I make them sick if I’m NOT sick and they’re vaccinated.’

Bud: ‘Because you’re unvaccinated.’

Lou: ‘But they’re vaccinated.’

Bud: ‘But they can still get sick.’

Lou: ‘So what the heck does the vaccine do?’

Bud: ‘It vaccinates.’

Lou: ‘So vaccinated people can’t spread covid?’

Bud: ‘Oh no. They can spread covid just as easily as an unvaccinated person.’

Lou: ‘I don’t even know what I’m saying anymore. Look. I’m not sick.

Bud: ‘Ok.’ Lou: ‘And the guy you let in IS sick.’

Bud: ‘That’s right.’

Lou: ‘And everybody in there can still get sick even though they’re vaccinated.’

Bud: ‘Certainly.’

Lou: ‘So why can’t I go in again?’

Bud: ‘Because you’re unvaccinated.’

Lou: ‘I’m not asking who’s vaccinated or not!’

Bud: ‘I’m just telling you how it is.’

Lou: ‘Nevermind. I’ll just put on my mask.’

Bud: ‘That’s fine.’

Lou: ‘Now I can go in?’

Bud: ‘Absolutely not?’

Lou: ‘But I have a mask!’

Bud: ‘Doesn’t matter.’

Lou: ‘I was able to come in here yesterday with a mask.’

Bud: ‘I know.’

Lou: So why can’t I come in here today with a mask? ….If you say ‘because I’m unvaccinated’ again, I’ll break your arm.’

Bud: ‘Take it easy buddy.’

Lou: ‘So the mask is no good anymore.’

Bud: ‘No, it’s still good.’

Lou: ‘But I can’t come in?’

Bud: ‘Correct.’

Lou: ‘Why not?’

Bud: ‘Because you’re unvaccinated.’

Lou: ‘But the mask prevents the germs from getting out.’

Bud: ‘Yes, but people can still catch your germs.’

Lou: ‘But they’re all vaccinated.’

Bud: ‘Yes, but they can still get sick.’

Lou: ‘But I’m not sick!!’

Bud: ‘You can still get them sick.’

Lou: ‘So then masks don’t work!’

Bud: ‘Masks work quite well.’

Lou: ‘So how in the heck can I get vaccinated people sick if I’m not sick and masks work?’

Bud: ‘Third base.’

And…scene…

The illogic of it all is the astounding thing. Paul Jacob captured this yesterday by showing how challengeable the official line is:

A recent Reason article on New York’s new vaccination passport informs that “there’s a case to be made . . .” yet neglects to mention that the opposite case can also be made. 

What case is it?

Well, the Mayor Bill de Blasio-sanctified case is that “these [totalitarian] measures are important for getting as much of the population vaccinated as possible in order to reduce virus mutation and prevent more harmful variants from taking root.” 

Yet the inverse is perhaps more persuasive. Several important figures in the medical and scientific community have been crying Cassandra* for some time, arguing that an ineffective vaccine, like the mRNA treatments sponsored by Pfizer and Moderna, may, according to epidemiological principles long understood, pressure the spreading viruses into the thing we don’t want: more deadly variants.

The normal course for a new contagion is for it to mutate into easier-to-spread but less deadly variants. Killing a host isn’t good for the virus, so it changes over time. Oddly, I rarely hear this mentioned.

Herd immunity, which is the prevalence in a community of enough people who can fend off the virus preventing transmission to weaker people, can only be helped by vaccination when the vaccines increase hosts’ immunity to obtaining it and spreading it — neither of which clearly applies to the current vaccines.

“From their very first conceptualization,” claims Geert Vanden Bossche, one of the biggest names in the industry to object to the vaccination campaign, “it should have been very clear that these ‘S-based’ Covid-19 vaccines are completely inadequate for generating herd immunity in a population, regardless of . . . the rate of vaccine coverage.”

Sans herd immunity but with universal vaccination, he says, deadlier variants could arise.

Is he right? I don’t know. 

But the case against vaccine passports might reference epidemiology and virology from sources outside establishment-approved “scientific” opinion.

Totalitarians rarely have “the science” on their side.

Paul Jacob, Common Sense with Paul Jacob, “Ceding ‘Science’ to Totalitarians?” (August 19, 2021).

The Reason article Paul quoted notes that there are no exceptions given, under de Blasio’s regime, for natural immunity. You have to take “the jab” no matter what, or no society for you. You will be kept out of all public buildings. Including “private” businesses. An astounding thing. My Facebook reaction to this policy was brief:

The irrationality here should be obvious. The consequences of the irrationality are perhaps less obvious, because Americans have never really seen their own society break into pure terror and mob-fueled totalitarianism before. They are unprepared. And most will deny the warning, calling the warning itself irrational. But Folly now calls to its own, and we can expect the madness to grow exponentially. It has been fun, so to speak. Now it gets grim. The end of the republic is at hand. Woo-hoo? (Ugh.)

Theoria Apophasis calls the process underway “bringing a people to its knees.” But it is not just the madness of crowds. There are guiding hands, as I argued, and it has been going on a long time. Take the vaccines. Vaccination has been hyped and the case for their success grossly overstated:

We are propagandized about vaccines for reasons of power: medical and political. More important than vaccination in [nearly] eradicating traditional major diseases was the automobile replacing horses (which shat everywhere) and the development of good plumbing and sewage systems.

“Civilization is the distance man has placed between himself and his own excreta.” Brian Aldiss, The Dark Light Years

Folks who like public Uplift could take credit for these two major developments, since government was involved in strategic ways. But why don’t they? Because there is scant more power to be gained by their promotion. The next ramp-up of power is from the medicalization of everyday life. Therapeutic tyranny is, as Thomas Szasz predicted, the next big thing.

And fabulism about vaccination efficacy is a key propaganda point to ushering in the new form of control.

New York’s vaccination passport is merely the first step. Politicians, bureaucrats, doctors and Big Pharma will take it all — take away as much freedom and dissolve as much distributed responsibility as possible — if we let them.

The rationales for masks, lockdowns, and the vaccines are all very bad. Courtesy of historian Tom Woods, I shared an important chart:

Here are the death numbers for Germany and Sweden. Sweden is at about 9% mask compliance; Germany has a medical-grade mask mandate. Yet same trajectory, same numbers. £ It’s almost like the virus does what it will, regardless of our “I feel better if I’m doing something even if it’s pointless” interventions. [Tom Woods]

My comment on this was succinct:

I’m so tired of the way most folks argue for masks. That is, like religious zealots. I argue against masks every which way — except one: I think masking when sick would be socially useful; masking when not showing symptoms, on the other hand, is socially detrimental. I’ve made the case before. It’s fairly obvious.

My view of the near future is quite bleak. But I do agree that not all hope is lost:

An intransigent minority can win. And did. In Afghanistan.

And, just so, if Americans wish to regain freedom, the would-be free must become intransigent, or they shall be ground down quickly. The grinding machinery of mob government is at the door….

And I do have a vision of how a freer society would handle contagions like the current one — and worse:

A free people would negotiate with each other openly and rationally on matters of how to handle sociality during a contagion.

They would not mandate coercive policies with ambiguous effects and then stick to their “sides” as if the issue were Eternal Security and the proper way to settle arguments were to point at specific Bible verses.

They would not revise their history books to conform to the latest policy whim, as the author of that history of the Spanish Flu did this past year. They would not blithely suppress ideas they disagree with. They would not scream at those whom they disagree with in public, and sic the cops onto children to pepper spray them for non-compliance with an ineffective mask mandate.

But we are not a free people. We are a disgraceful one.

That reference to a cop pepper-spraying a child who wasn’t complying with an idiotic mask mandate came from Australia, actually. But I feel at one with Australia. This is not just one country utterly pissing away freedom, here. It is most of a civilization. Ours. “Western,” so to speak.

twv

. . . as appeared earlier on Facebook. . . .

I’m one of those people who don’t much care for public fondling. Half the population seems really into hugging, for example. Me, not so much.

So, what do I think of Andrew Cuomo’s “That’s Italian!” defense of his behavior?

He pretty much convinced me. I am very skeptical about the worst of the accusations, and I doubt if the bulk of his gropings and fondlings were primarily of a sexual nature.

Were they “inappropriate”?

That depends upon culture. I don’t think men should be kissing each other in public — but he did kiss other men in public. Many people do. Many people in Europe today do. And in the Middle East. “Kiss each other with the brotherly kiss” is in the Bible. Human beings tend to be very hands-on/lips-on in their basic ceremonies, and pretending otherwise is I guess kind of stupid.

While I think Biden’s gropings and hair-sniffings of girls and women in public is ultra-creepy, he may be innocent — though his whoremonger son suggests that the Big Man’s lesson was not taken innocently. Which decreases my subjective probability of Joe’s innocence.

Perhaps we need an end to #metoo.

How about #dontgropemebro?

We who do not like to be groped by strangers, or kissed by acquaintances in public, and suchlike, need to come up with graceful ways of brushing off the over-huggers and kissy-kissy folks.

And when it gets to genital or other gropings, a good kick in the crotch always works.

Hey, I’ve been the subject of unwanted sexual gropings — in my younger days, I assure you — but I never squealed or even protested. I merely removed the offending hand, saying “no thanks.” This was not difficult. It wasn’t traumatic. But I’m a man, and I was at full 5’10” the first time it happened. Drunken sluts and horndog pederasts seemed easy to rebuff. And they are nothing like the public displays of over-touching that Cuomo engaged in.

Should he have resigned? He should have over his horrific COVID failures. But note the cultural difference here: he was widely praised for his COVID policies! Oh, how the cuomosexuals drooled over his dreamy “leadership”! Talk about offensive.

It is amusing that he was concerned with lockdowns when he couldn’t lock down his hands or his lips when greeting someone.

There’s a lot of humor in this situation. But it is not just that Cuomo is a perv. He probably is. I think old men with nipple rings are pervs. But whatever. Seeing him kiss Bill Clinton should put all this #metoo stuff in context.

I still think that he is bowing out because the investigation revealed actual criminal behavior. That Democrats prefer to sacrifice him on the grounds sexual harassment is a good example of their cowardice and lack of integrity.

But hey: hug the monster you want. Consensually.

Yet, in politics, consent is barely an issue. And the left may regret pushing it to the front. For the very nature of the state denies consent at a fundamental level. Individually we do not consent to the state. We accommodate power. And we call our accommodations “consent.” The average citizen behaves like those battered spouses who cling to their abusers. I have always thought that these sexual and ceremonial issues should be dealt separately from politics. As in the Cuomo kissery and banter and such, but maybe not.

Like at the end of the Planet of the Apes, a warning applies: if you push the consent issue to its logical conclusion, “you may not like what you find.” Your beloved cult of the omnipotent state falls apart. The State itself may crumble under the critique.

twv

. . . as posted on Facebook. . . .

Retirement, especially as guaranteed by government, is the secular replacement for heaven.

It is the funniest religion-buster we have. Social Security is also a great metaphor for one view of Christian salvation: half works, half grace. But I still have trouble seeing the State as Savior, which is the favored model of many people, left and right. Of course, in this analogy, it is on the left that the messianism is strongest, for leftists want (nay, demand!) at the very minimum something like a guaranteed income, which is all grace and no works. I snicker.

Yes, I find our world hilarious.

January 11, 2021, 3:14 PM PST


Just to re-state: Bill Barr did not disclose the FBI’s ongoing investigations into Hunter Biden even while Trump was being impeached for asking for an investigation into the Bidens. How could this be justified? Barr had what seems to me a clear obligation to the citizenry to explain what was really going on. Instead, he let every gullible person in America think Trump was likely engaged in a partisan, self-interested witch hunt, when he really had reasonable suspicion of deep crookery.

That strikes me as cause for Barr to be reviled for siding with the Deep State and against a sitting president for doing nothing wrong.

And now Ukraine has come out with its investigation results. The government says billions are missing and the Bidens engineered the theft.

Yet I notice little talk in the press. We hardly need to wonder why: the press in America is largely a propaganda mill for the Deep State.

A video comment about the origins of the ongoing Ukraine fiasco.

January 11, 2021, 12:16 PM PST

The idea is to liken global warming skeptics to holocaust deniers. It’s a bit misleading because the skeptics/climate realists are the ones who always emphasize that climate never stops changing and has been changing for over four billion years, while the global warming catastrophists try to deny the reality of the Medieval Warm Period (when the Earth was hotter than today) and the Little Ice Age (from which we are still rebounding).

David Ramsay Steele, as quoted by Lee C. Waaks.

Now we skeptics can be called COVID deniers by the same crowd, on a different subject (but with eerily similar policy prescriptions), because we really do have this notion that science is about criticism, and requires considering more than one factor in a complex phenomenon.

January 11, 2016, 7:16 PM PST


The official timeline of the coronavirus outbreak is almost certainly wrong. Instances of the virus (in some form) appeared in the West in pockets starting in November 2019. I had it in February, and I was fairly late to the disease in the valley I live in. My brother had the same, odd illness in December and January, and he’s over a thousand miles to the east. Studies indicate that it was in Europe in December.

This could have huge implications for our understanding of what the virus is and why it has spread like it has. I have conjectures, but it would be mere fun to speculate much. The truth is unknown by me.

January 12, 2021, 4:47 PM PST


Operation Paperclip was a thing. It is a fact. Nazi scientists and technicians were imported into the United States to fill the ranks of NASA, military contractors, the academy, and intel agencies. We have good reason to believe that the disinformation skills of the National Socialists were absorbed into the intellectual culture of the Deep State in the 1950s and 1960s.

This is not a mere conspiracy theory, since while the secrecy was real the program has been acknowledged. And it was vast.

We might want to keep this in mind when considering current psychological operations and Internet speech suppression.

Now, some extrapolations we can make from this are indeed “conspiracy theories.” Joseph P. Farrell’s judgment — his “high octane speculation” that he floats as reasonable and likely — is that the Nazis basically took over America in a de facto if not de jure fashion with the JFK assassination. That seems a big stretch. I know. But it should be judged by the evidence, not our well-programmed “instincts.” Many of our prejudices have been programmed by psychological operations of the Deep State. For example, “conspiracy theory” was a term coined and pushed by the CIA for the media to use to marginalize anyone who questioned the “lone gunman” theory of the JFK assassination.

Don’t be good little boys and girls. You can be adults and question authority.

An afterthought on causation: A group that could incorporate Nazis into it is obviously nasty. A group incorporating Nazis into it, and in high places, offering special expense accounts and subsidies, is not going to be bettered by the inclusion. Indeed, it’s indicative of a direction. And that helps explain why America is such a messed-up place: it anathematizes Nazis but is run like a Fourth Reich, increasingly.

January 12, 2021, 5:05 PM PST


New temporary Profile Image, May 10, 2021. Note: this mask is only a nicety. It cannot possibly affect even a mere bacterial transmission, the grid of its breathing net being too wide. It is a camouflage mask, for hunters. But I use it as a camouflage mask for woke disease puritans.

The mask mandate has been something of a puzzle. From the beginning, we were lied to about mask efficacy during a respiratory virus epidemic. At first, we all remember, we were told not to wear them, they wouldn’t be effective, people couldn’t wear them well, etc. And the studies (and yes, there were studies) did not show any utility in reducing the spread of an airborne viral contagion. But Fauci, whom everyone knows, deep down, is a liar, seemed to be lying when he told us they weren’t useful. He was just saving the masks for the professionals! So it sounded to normal people like they did work, but Fauci got almost no flak for fibbing.

Then came the lockdowns, the Fifteen Days to Flatten the Curve – to save the hospitals from over-flow and professional staff from being over-burdened. We were advised to wear makeshift masks in our few public appearances, and we were told that mask production was up. And well-meaning people chipped in, making and selling and giving away home-made masks. And most of us thought that a 15-day holiday was the least we could do.

And then came the greatest con job in world history. Most people did not blink, sucked it all in like an OnlyFans whore. The governors of the states – and officials around the world – kept the lockdowns past the 15 day limit. In American, the hospitals suffered chiefly from under-use, not over-use, so the whole rationale had evaporated. Yet the lockdowns continued, and Trump’s promise of a vaccine shifted the whole pandemic panic from a coping strategy, playing it as it comes, to an over-arching Salvation Strategy, wherein anyone dying was a tragedy for the world, and how dare anyone think anything about their rights when old people are dying. So we are still in this ambiguous realm of over-reaction in most places, but open society in some places, like South Dakota, Texas and Florida — the latter two where the COVID is not as disastrous as it is in the lockdown areas. Meanwhile, many of us are wearing masks. I find it stupid, and when I look at cross-regional stats, I can see absolutely no correlation between mask and lockdowns with better epidemic outcomes. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

So what is with these masks? They are crowd control. Their limited utility is keeping people from touching their faces, as a sort of muzzle — though even this minor effect has not been demonstrated statistically, and I am unaware of any study that demonstrates this effect clearly.

“It cannot hurt” is the best we can say for the policy. But that is not at all true. Look at children who have gotten infections because they are wearing masks all day, because of insane state mandates in public schools. Remember, masks are probably pretty effective in sealing in/out bacterial infections. But that sealing-in effect can be quite bad.

But most people don’t care about that, because they are sheep. We bleat, we do not reason.

May 10, 2021, 2:17 PM


Whereas the traditional way of categorizing the general government of these United States is to list the three constitutionally divided federal branches, with their respective designated powers; and whereas the even more traditional is to recognize the primacy of the states in the federation, nevertheless — I recognize that things have changed, and there exists a Leviathan of competing and cooperating powers, including:

1. constitutional government, as specified in written documents at the country’s origins, and as funded by a variety of taxes and loans;

2. the welfare state, as funded by income earners and spent in transfer payments in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and allied programs;

3. the Deep State, as constituting the Administrative State in its more secret realms, in the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, and, especially, in their semi-permanent “partners” in military and intelligence contractors (the “military-industrial complex,” as Ike put it);

4. the Wide State, as instantiated in the major players in the unions and plutocracy, and in the shallow end of the Deep State, and especially in the corporations and NGOs that gain power by contract and special relationships with the constitutional government, but sans secrecy; and

5. government by folkways, which remains the part I like the most, but which has proved itself recently of being captured by the governments above to quite bracing effects.

May 12, 2021, 1:45 PM


It is worth noting that “social justice” is in complete opposition to liberty in the realm of public policy. Social justice is a changeling philosophy, swapped out to “liberals” while they were barely paying attention in the government-run classes that were designed by advocates of social justice.

There is no compatibility between “social justice” and “liberty.” And when one waxes, the other must wane.

May 7, 2021, 5:14 PM


I received on my author’s page on Facebook a direct challenge to a recent post. I will respond to it here, as soon as my taxes are done. And I unbury myself from mowing the lawn, etc. So: maybe never?

Belgian economist whom I often mention on social media.

I prefer Gab and even Flote Beta to other social media apps:

And Paul Jacob discusses a relevant subject on Common Sense today:

In all the talk of “social media” — their psychological effects on us; their political power; their abusive treatment of our privacy and our loyalty — one thing does not get talked about enough: that social media’s chief utility for many of us is not social at all.

Facebook, YouTube, SoundCloud, Twitter, Gab, Instagram, Quora — these are personal databases. 

Databases on the Cloud, sure; databases open to the public and open to paying advertisers, surely (that’s how the media giants make money while providing us with a free service). 

But they remain databases. And, as such, they allow us to log our interactions with both online and physical worlds, storing our photos, videos, audios, links, thoughts, questions & answers, and more, so we may retrieve them later for whatever projects we may be engaged in.

This is no small thing if you are in a “business” like ThisIsCommonSense.org, where mining what I read two weeks ago can turn into something I need tomorrow. 

Trouble is, the search features of most social media services . . . well . . . don’t find much. It is often devilishly hard to find that article one linked to last April, or November, or . . . was it December? The search features to one’s own entries (as well as others’) should be much more robust. Inventive. Useful. 

It would be nice if the social media companies that mine our data for their pecuniary advantage would also allow us to mine our data . . . for our more humble purposes.

So, take this as advice to alternative social media developers, like the Flote app: if you are literally providing a database for clients (and not true P2P functionality), then give search features more serious attention.

So that we can quickly find and re-share our most sublime cat photos.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

“Cats’ Pajamas,” ThisIsCommonSense.org, April 30, 2021.

These apps do have indices and search functions, but not very good ones. And Facebook’s most recent upgrade made it harder for me to find stuff on it. Not easier. I wish Gab and Flote the best, though.

twv

Yesterday was a day of low tide. This is the kind of photo I tend to share on social media.

Frankly, I am tempted to be thankful that our technocratic fascisti among corporate journalists overplay their hands, since what they are dealing is decadence. Nicely, Jacob Sullum is a journalist working outside the bindings of the fasces:

Based on an analysis of news stories about COVID-19 that appeared from January 1 through July 31, Dartmouth economist Bruce Sacerdote and two other researchers found that 91 percent of the coverage by major U.S. media outlets was “negative in tone.” The rate was substantially lower in leading scientific journals (65 percent) and foreign news sources (54 percent).

Sacerdote and his co-authors, who report their results in a working paperrecently published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that stories about increases in newly identified infections far outnumbered stories about decreases, “even when caseloads were falling nationally.” Coverage of school reopenings likewise was “overwhelmingly negative, while the scientific literature tells a more optimistic story,” indicating that “schools have not become the super-spreaders many feared.”

This unrelenting, indiscriminate negativity fosters suspicion and resistance. Journalists and politicians who repeatedly cry wolf should not be surprised at the lack of cooperation when the beast actually appears.

Last May, The New York Times warned that lifting state lockdowns could raise nationwide COVID-19 deaths above 3,000 a day by June 1. The actual number was about 700.

Since mid-October, the seven-day average of daily deaths has more than tripled, exceeding the record set in April. But that reality still falls short of the false prophecy embraced by the Times.

Jacob Sullum, “Are Americans Insufficiently Alarmed by COVID-19?,” Reason, December 19, 2020.
From a Fb thread on a Reason article. Going “over the top” has its amusements.

Sullum concludes by opining for “the honesty that Americans deserve,” but I hesitate to endorse this. I wish better for Americans than what they deserve. It is quite possible that Americans do deserve what they are getting.

twv

…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

re: The Hunter Biden Laptop Leaks

…missive posted to Facebook….

Facebook and Twitter are prohibiting discussion about Biden corruption by disallowing linkage to a certain N.Y. P o s t article.

So, my benighted Democratic friends, you copacetic with this?

Do you feel protected?

Are you breathing a sigh of relief that you do not have to deal with major information about your party’s corruption?

Proud of the fact that the only way your side can possibly win is by rigging the game against your opponents?

Glorying in the de facto censorship, and itching to place more once your side gets in full power?

Is this the future you see for America and the world, a sort of Stasi-state crackdown on free speech and debate?

Love what your party has become?

Itching to mark your ballot to end freedom in America forever, doing your part for technocratic socialism?

Place your mask over your eyes and ears, too, Democrats!

By no means do any research that reveals the evil you have embraced.

twv

Herbert Spencer’s ten-volume Synthetic Philosophy.

What are the sociological arguments against socialism? (Not economic) I guess one of the stereotypical ones is ‘makes people lazy and unwilling to work.’ ‘Infantilises people.’ What others can you think of?

The question was asked of libertarians in a private group on Facebook. Many interesting answers were given. But I see a lot of talk but no mention of actual sociologists.

Two should immediately come to mind, for at classical liberal theory’s last gasp stands two pioneering sociologists who could very much be called libertarians: Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner. Both argued against the rising intellectual and political movement in their day, and both brought a lot of intelligence to the debate. I can imagine Sumner being a favorite, in part because of his more vigorous prose, but I just want to sketch Spencer’s arguments as they appear in the latter chapters of The Principles of Sociology: Part VIII, Industrial Institutions.

In the 22nd chapter, titled “Socialism,” Spencer began, ‘Some socialists, though probably not many, know that their ideal modes of associated living are akin to modes which have prevailed widely during early stages of civilization, and prevail still among many of the uncivilized, as well as among some of the civilized who have lagged behind.’ After giving a number of examples of primitive societies in then-recent history — citing the ‘aborigines of North America’ and their system’s brake on thrift and industry; the affable and easygoing ‘Croatian house-communities’ whose high rates of child mortality and lack of education (with the ‘children unkempt and neglected’) and industry still-born because of the share-out ‘sub-divisions’ of communal work but whose group orientation was spurred by the rigors of defense and warfare — Spencer concluded like this: ‘Hence the socialist theory and practice are normal in the militant type of society, and cease to be normal as fast as the society becomes predominantly industrial in its type.’

He of course admitted that a ‘state of universal brotherhood is so tempting an imagination, and the existing state of competitive strife is so full of miseries, that endeavours to escape from the last and enter into the first are quite natural — inevitable even. Prompted by consciousness of the grievous inequalities of condition around, those who suffer and those who sympathize with them, seek to found what they think an equitable social system.’ But then Spencer turned his attention to the many attempts to set up better systems, the utopian community movement — the ‘experiments in living,’ as J.S. Mill characterized them, the movement with which I started my own political inquiries over four decades ago. There he found failure after failure. Problems identified by the sources he cited include

  • too much ‘diversity’ of opinion to make coördination of labor anything like efficient
  • grumbling and frowardness
  • recognition that lack of rewards for extra work must entail general low performance
  • fights on the job, sans punishment; violent discord

Utopian communities rarely sported any kind of success. Spencer regarded it a plain fact that ‘human beings as now constituted cannot work together efficiently and harmoniously’ in the ways proposed by socialist reformers. And he noted that socialists rarely admit this obvious truth — or, ‘if by some admitted, then it is held that the mischiefs arising from defective natures may be prevented by a sufficiently powerful authority—that is, if for these separate groups one great organization centrally controlled is substituted.’

But such resort to force, Spencer argued, would not be sustainable.

He rested quite a lot on what he calls ‘the general law of species-life’ which has it ‘that during immature life benefit received must be great in proportion as worth is small, while during mature life benefit and worth must vary together.’ But ‘collectivists, socialists, and communists,’ ignore this ‘distinction between the ethics of family-life and the ethics of life outside the family. Entirely under some forms, and in chief measure under others, it proposes to extend the régime of the family to the whole community.’ Spencer here pushed a theme we encounter later in F.A. Hayek, who, incidentally, pointedly never read Spencer’s work.

‘The socialist does not ask what must happen if, generation after generation, the material well-being of the inferior is raised at the cost of lowering that of the superior. Even when it is pointed out, he refuses to see that if the superior, persistently burdened by the inferior, are hindered in rearing their own better offspring, that the offspring of the inferior may be as efficiently cared for, a gradual deterioration of the race must follow. The hope of curing present evils so fills his consciousness that it cannot take in the thought of the still greater future evils his proposed system would produce.’

Spencer went on to argue that ‘people who, in their corporate capacity, abolish the natural relation between merits and benefits, will presently be abolished themselves. Either they will have to go through the miseries of a slow decay, consequent on the increase of those unfit for the business of life, or they will be overrun by some people who have not pursued the foolish policy of fostering the worst at the expense of the best.’

We see that today, even in our own semi-socialist Euro-American context. I just finished reading Edward Dutton’s book Why Islam Makes You Stupid … But Also Means You’ll Conquer the World, and his careful speculations add to Spencer’s sociological argument. Dutton follows Spencer, by the way, in advancing a kind of theory that is a no-no among academic neo-Darwinists: group selection theory.

Calling the ‘doctrine of the socialists … psychologically absurd,’ Spencer argued that it ‘implies an impossible mental structure.’

The socialist society ‘must be composed of men having sympathies so strong that those who, by their greater powers, achieve greater benefits, willingly surrender the excess to others.’ Spencer queried the nature of this altruism: ‘The intensity of fellow feeling is to be such as to cause life-long self-sacrifice.’ But what of the beneficiaries? What must be the attitudes of those be? They gain at their betters’ expense. How can they share the same moral attitudes, then, under such circumstances?

Spencer calls this ‘contradictory,’ and the ‘implied mental constitution … an impossible one.’

Then the rubber really sticks to the pavement ‘when we recognize a further factor in the problem — love of offspring. Within the family parental affection joins sympathy in prompting self-sacrifice, and makes it easy, and indeed pleasurable, to surrender to others a large part of the products of labour. But such surrender made to those within the family-group is at variance with a like surrender made to those outside the family-group.’

You see what is coming, though, don’t you? A ready and old communist solution: ‘Parental relations are to be superseded, and children are to be taken care of by the State. The method of Nature is to be replaced by a better method.’ Spencer was obviously not impressed with this, and related it to the aforementioned ‘general law of species-life’: just as ‘socialists would suspend the natural relation between effort and benefit, so would they suspend the natural relation between the instinctive actions of parents and the welfare of progeny. The two great laws in the absence of either of which organic evolution would have been impossible, are both to be repealed!’

So you see that Spencer is — in addition to be a structuralist, functionalist, and a general systems theorist (see Jonathan Turner’s terrific little book on Spencer’s sociology) — an evolutionist. He has thus been attacked as a dread ‘Social Darwinist,’ but see that he is not talking about letting people starve. He was a forerunner to sociobiology, and the likes of that “Jolly Heretic,” Edward Dutton, whose works are certainly thought-provoking.

Now, Spencer readily conceded that something like socialist arrangements might work in some simple societies. ‘It would not be altogether irrational to expect that some of the peaceful Indian hill-tribes, who display the virtue of forgiveness without professing it, or those Papuan Islanders among whom the man chosen as chief uses his property to help poorer men out of their difficulties, might live harmoniously under socialistic arrangements; but can we reasonably expect this of men who, pretending to believe that they should love their neighbours as themselves, here rob their fellows and there shoot them, while hoping to slay wholesale men of other blood?’ Spencer thought that character is an important aspect of social evolution, and that character changes according to circumstance. Most importantly, above the tribal level, and that of chiefdoms, the militant mindset predominates before we ever really get to the industrial mindset, and that the attitudes of militancy that might spur some to dream the socialist dream themselves militate against such a dream.

Now, what is really ‘at issue between socialists and anti-socialists … concerns the mode of regulating labour.’ Earlier in his big book he ‘illustrated in detail the truth, emphasized at the outset, that political, ecclesiastical, and industrial regulations simultaneously decrease in coerciveness as we ascend from lower to higher types of societies: the modern industrial system being one under which coerciveness approaches a minimum. Though now the worker is often mercilessly coerced by circumstances, and has nothing before him but hard terms, yet he is not coerced by a master into acceptance of these terms.’ That is, the general condition of hardship remains from difficult, pre-capitalist times, specific terms of hardship are not, in a mostly free society, themselves coerced.

This is, of course, a distinction modern leftists refuse to acknowledge.

Spencer saw a parallax view problem, here: ‘while the evils which resulted from the old modes of regulating labour, not experienced by present or recent generations, have been forgotten, the evils accompanying the new mode are keenly felt, and have aroused the desire for a mode which is in reality a modified form of the old mode. There is to be a re-institution of status not under individual masters but under the community as master.’

Spencer also insisted that a ‘complete parallelism exists between such a social structure and the structure of an army. It is simply a civil regimentation parallel to the military regimentation; and it establishes an industrial subordination parallel to the military subordination. In either case the rule is — Do your task and take your rations. In the working organization as in the fighting organization, obedience is requisite for maintenance of order, as well as for efficiency, and must be enforced with whatever rigour is found needful.’

So, the socialists’ perennial recourse to force upon the failure of their schemes entails quite a lots of regimentation. And with regimentation ‘must arise a new aristocracy for the support of which the masses would toil; and which, being consolidated, would wield a power far beyond that of any past aristocracy.’

But that specter of what was later called totalitarianism, along with its necessary inequalities, does not faze socialists. ‘Just as the zealous adherent of a religious creed, met by some fatal objection, feels certain that though he does not see the answer yet a good answer is to be found,’ Spencer explained, ‘or just as the lover to whom defects of his mistress are pointed out, cannot be made calmly to consider what will result from them in married life; so the socialist, in love with his scheme, will not entertain adverse criticisms, or gives no weight to them if he does.’

The dream must go on for the besotted. ‘He will continue to hope that selfish men may be so manipulated that they will behave unselfishly — that the effects of goodness may be had without the goodness. He has unwavering faith in a social alchemy which out of ignoble natures will get noble actions.’

In the next chapter, Spencer turned to the problem of individual ownership … self-ownership … the individual’s ownership of himself (or herself). But Spencer is a sociologist here, not a radical libertarian, and his point is to explore such issues to understand the ebb and flow of social change.

‘There is small objection to coercion if all are equally coerced; and hence the tendency to regimentation reappears in one or other form continually.’ Equality thus can breed not only liberty, but illiberal suppression, as well. This is a key observation, and helps us understand not only tyrannical systems but liberated ones. ‘Along with increases in that direct State-ownership of the individual which is implied by use of him as a soldier,’ Spencer explained, carrying the thought over to ‘observe the increase in that indirect State-ownership which is implied by multiplication of dictations and restraints, and by growth of general and local taxation.’ 

In the late 19th century, when Spencer was writing these final chapters to the final segment of his magnum opus, France and Germany were militarizing heavily. This led, a decade after Spencer’s demise, to a continental war, the First World War. And ‘with extensive ownership of the individual by the State in military and civil organizations, there has widely coexisted advocacy of that ownership by the State to which socialism gives another shape,’ Spencer recognized. But in his somewhat more liberal England, ‘with approximation to the continental type in the one respect, there has gone a growing acceptance of the continental conception in the other respect.’

What began as a middle-class Fabian movement grew enormously. 

It is worth mentioning, though, that during this same period the ranks of self-identified ‘individualists’ also grew, according to Wordsworth Donisthorpe in Law in a Free State, published within the year of the edition of Principles of Sociology that sits by my side. Apparently the fin de siècle was a time, like now, of ideological polarization. And the result was war, from which the individualists did not recover, but the statists did, in several forms: fascism, social democracy, progressivism, and socialism.

But that was a few decades later. Towards the end of Spencer’s life, socialists were urging the ‘ultimate absorption of all kinds of fixed property’  and advocating general strikes ‘against rents as an immediate method of procedure’ as well as showing ‘an absolute disregard of all existing contracts, and, by implication, a proposed abolition of contract for the future’ — all of which Spencer saw as a ‘return to the old system of status under a new form.’

Like Hayek after him, Spencer regarded socialism as atavistic.

‘For in the absence of that voluntary cooperation which contract implies,’ Spencer explained, ‘there is no possible alternative but compulsory cooperation. Self-ownership entirely disappears and ownership by others universally replaces it.’

And the political incentives towards this end sound eerily similar to today’s partisan/bipartisan lurch towards ever-bigger government. ‘Naturally the member of parliament who submits to coercion by his party, contemplates legal coercions of others without repugnance. . . [B]eing the creature of his party and the creature of his constituents, he does not hesitate in making each citizen the creature of the community.’

And socialists, in this kind of environment, have a field day, gaining converts. I mean, the promises! But, as Spencer observed, the new convert ‘is not told that if he is to be fed he must also be driven.’

Spencer did not predict revolution, though, despite how often it was advocated: ‘A sudden substitution of the régime proposed for the régime which exists, as intended by bearers of the red flag, seems less likely than a progressive metamorphosis.’

But the end-game seemed obvious: ‘a state in which no man can do what he likes but every man must do what he is told.’

Spencer lets bitterness creep into his treatise: ‘An entire loss of freedom will thus be the fate of those who do not deserve the freedom they possess.’

But how long would the new, collectivist social state last? Spencer did not predict. But he did guess, in his last chapter, how the new socialist order might end. Such orders end, sometimes, with a ‘sudden bursting of bonds which have become intolerable may in some cases happen: bringing on a military despotism. In other cases practical extinction may follow a gradual decay, arising from abolition of the normal relation between merit and benefit, by which alone the vigour of a race can be maintained. And in yet further cases may come conquest by peoples who have not been emasculated by fostering their feebles — peoples before whom the socialistic organization will go down like a house of cards, as did that of the ancient Peruvians before a handful of Spaniards.’

Now, Spencer is often castigated as an advocate of necessary unilinear progress, yet he was, at the end of his sociological work, explaining ‘retrogression.’ 

He tried to paint in landscape, not minute portraiture: ‘if the process of evolution which, unceasing throughout past time, has brought life to its present height, continues throughout the future, as we cannot but anticipate, then, amid all the rhythmical changes in each society, amid all the lives and deaths of nations, amid all the supplantings of race by race, there will go on that adaptation of human nature to the social state which began when savages first gathered together into hordes for mutual defence—an adaptation finally complete.’ He understood that his basic perspective is, to most people, ‘a wild imagination.’ But evolution was not the whole of his Synthetic Philosophy, not the whole of his famous schema, for he insisted that the ‘cosmic process brings about retrogression as well as progression, where the conditions favour it.’ Contra his critics, he asserted an obvious point: ‘Evolution does not imply a latent tendency to improve, everywhere in operation. There is no uniform ascent from lower to higher, but only an occasional production of a form which, in virtue of greater fitness for more complex conditions, becomes capable of a longer life of a more varied kind.’

But he did insist that there are indeed higher forms that can be distinguished from lower forms, the higher ones corresponding to ‘greater fitness for more complex conditions.’

And socialism is not that highest form.

Liberty is.

twv

In my arguments, chiefly against the left, these days, I often do not get argument in return, I get counter-assertion, restatement, and laughing emoji reacts.

Arguing against these approaches pointlessness, and usually I just roll my eyes. But one must occasionally make a stand for reason.

A neighbor of mine is an old progressive. I would say he is an “un-reconstructed progressive,” but that would be wrong. All the old progressives I know do the pomo thing: racism, sexism, classicism, partisanship, relentless promotion of big government. Here is a typical Facebook interchange:

Now, my neighbor’s name I have obscured in black, his friend in red. The linked article was inapposite, so I responded:

Notice the only responses? Laughing emoji. I did not say anything funny, and my criticasters merely pretended not to be agelasts.

Then, not long after, my neighbor offered up another lame “meme”:

And here we get some argument, at last:

I leave laughter for other occasions: on the issue of group violence I am a stickler.

And even Paul Jacob strikes me as bending way too far backwards for the forces of chaos:

I give him some pushback, for I do not really agree with his general perspective: mass violence cannot easily be met with normal police action. It is warfare — Portland’s mayor calls it “urban warfare,” but more than implies that the federal government started it . . . which it did not.

Actually, Paul himself champed at the bit of this nonsense on Wednesday:

Cops vs. Mobs, Tyranny vs. Law?

“He was stuffed into what may have been a rental van operated by unmarked federal agents,” explained Cato Institute’s Patrick Eddington, “and taken to the federal courthouse, where he was interrogated without counsel. He wisely refused to answer questions and was then subsequently released without any kind of charges being filed.”

Eddington concluded: “I think most people would call that kidnapping.” 

The “he” — detained and questioned by federal agents* in Portland, Oregon — is Mark Pettibone. Whether the van was rented is irrelevant, nor do these agents or their vehicles require any marking.

And criminal suspects can lawfully be held for questioning. 

“So that we understand how police may remove someone from the streets,” Cato Daily Podcast host Caleb Brown adroitly offered, “we understand that they need to identify themselves. . . . that people who are placed under arrest retain certain rights to communicate with the outside world, to assert their ability to have a lawyer present for questioning.

“It seems that perhaps,” added Brown, “asking for a lawyer was the trigger here” resulting in Mr. Pettibone’s release.

Eddington agreed, but then announced that it “really does have the feel of Argentina or Chile in the 1970s, with the disappearances that took place. The only thing lacking was Mr. Pettibone being murdered by those agents.”

That is one big “only”!

“This is being done essentially to try to suppress protests in this country,” argued Eddington. “It has nothing to actually do with protecting monuments.” 

“We’re talking only about violent rioters,” Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli told NPR. “We’re not talking about actual protesters. We’re not seeking to interfere at all with anyone peacefully expressing themselves — period, full stop.”

Following the rule of law means protecting peaceful protests. And welcoming an investigation into the federal role in Portland. More concerning than Mr. Pettibone’s detention is the continued use of so-called non-lethal weapons, which seriously injured a protester weeks ago.

But the rule of law also means protecting Portlanders and their property against violence and destruction. And welcoming an investigation into the state and local dereliction of duty in Portland. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* The Department of Homeland Security acknowledged that agents with the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) were “cross designated to support FPS” (the Federal Protection Service) in Portland “because of the demand for more manpower in light of the violence.”

So here Paul is resolute in opposing what I object to, the way our dominant culture bends over backward to cover for leftist mass violence strikes me as part of the post-modernist mind-rape that constitutes the psy-op of the Deep State and the old, old memeplex that is totalitarianism.

If it were not so dangerous I would laugh.

Maybe I will laugh at it tomorrow. Right now, eyerolls only:

Charlie Day Eye Roll GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY