Archives for category: Social Theory

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, especially The 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 Great sported 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?

twv

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.

twv

We have inflation because we let inflationists have power:

The Century Company (1927; 1942).

As the war in Ukraine continues, muddied by the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline in the Baltic Sea, it is startling how few people mention — much less sound the alarm about — a possible thermonuclear war. Why isn’t this the number one topic of conversation?

The United States has pitted itself against Russia, an old enemy with a large nuclear arsenal, and Vladimir Putin, its tyrant, has point blank stated that he will use nukes if Russian territory is attacked.

While this might seem a moment for diplomacy, that’s not what I’m hearing.

What I am hearing is that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services “is buying $290 million worth of anti-radiation sickness drugs as part of its ‘long-standing, ongoing efforts to be better prepared to save lives following radiological and nuclear emergencies.’”

Nicely worded . . . to discourage panic.

But we would have to be morons not to wonder whether some parts of government are perceiving an increasingly likely outcome of policies initiated by other parts of government.

I bring up the notion that government isn’t the unitary thing we often, for convenience, pretend it is. But we know that bureaus and personnel have distinct points of view and gameplans. Indeed, it would be no shock to learn — years hence, if years we have — that the current antagonism is not the result of a concerted, department-crossing plan at State. The fact that expanding NATO was pushed for years, in different administrations, over the warnings of a few Cassandras, and despite the threats of Putin himself.

Meanwhile, HHS is stocking up on over a quarter of a billion bucks’ worth of anti-radiation drugs.

And we’re left here on the sidelines, wondering.

For now.

twv

In the Middle Ages, society was convinced that there were witches. People were so positive that they burned people whom they suspected of witchcraft. To-day there is an equal number of people who believe just as firmly, one way or the other, about spiritualism and spirits. They do not burn mediums. But people who have made no research of the subject pass strong denunciatory judgments. Others, no better informed, consider mediums divinely inspired. Not so long ago every intelligent man knew that the world was flat. To-day the average man has a belief just as firm and unknowing in the mysterious force which he has heard called atomic energy.

It is axiomatic that men who know little are often intolerant of a point of view that is contrary to their own. The bitterness that has been brought about by arguments on public questions is proverbial. Lovers have been parted by bitter quarrels on theories of pacificism or militarism; and when an argument upon an abstract question engages opponents they often desert the main line of argument in order to abuse each other.

How often this is true can be seen from the congressional records of controversies in which the personal attack supersedes logic. In a recent fight against the proposed tariff measures, a protagonist of protection published long vindictive statements, in which he tried to confound the character and the disinterestedness of his opponents. Logically his discussion should have been based only upon the sound economic, social and political value of the bill as presented.

A hundred leading American bankers, business men, professional men and economists united in public disapproval of this plan. They stated their opinion that the “American” Valuation Plan, as it was called, would endanger the prosperity of the country, that it would be inimical to our foreign relations and that it would injure the welfare of every country with whom our commercial and industrial ties were at all close. This group was a broadly representative group of men and women, yet the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee accused all these people of acting upon motives of personal gain and lack of patriotism. Prejudice superseded logic.

Intolerance is almost inevitably accompanied by a natural and true inability to comprehend or make allowance for opposite points of view. The skilled scientist who may be receptive to any promising suggestion in his own field may outside of his own field be found quite unwilling to make any attempt at understanding a point of view contrary to his own. In politics, for example, his understanding of the problem may be fragmentary, yet he will enter excitedly into discussions on bonus and ship subsidy, of which he has made no study. We find here with significant uniformity what one psychologist has called “logic-proof compartments.”

The logic-proof compartment has always been with us. Scientists have lost their lives through refusing to see flaws in their theories. Intelligent mothers give food to their babies that they would manifestly forbid other mothers to give their children. Especially significant is the tendency of races to maintain religious beliefs and customs long after these have lost their meaning. Dietary laws, hygienic laws, even laws based upon geographical conditions that have been changed for more than a thousand years are still maintained in the logic-proof compartment of dogmatic adherence. There is a story that certain missionaries give money to heathen at the time of conversion and that the heathen, having got their money, bathe away their conversion in sacred streams.

The characteristic of the human mind to adhere to its beliefs is excellently summarized in the volume by Mr. Trotter to which reference has been made before. “It is clear,” says Mr. Trotter, “at the outset that these beliefs are invariably regarded as rational and defended as such, while the position of one who holds contrary views is held to be obviously unreasonable.

“The religious man accuses the atheist of being shallow and irrational, and is met by a similar reply. To the Conservative the amazing thing about the Liberal is his incapacity to see reason and accept the only possible solution of public problems. Examination reveals the fact that the differences are not due to the commission of the mere mechanical fallacies of logic, since these are easily avoided, even by the politician, and since there is no reason to believe that one party in such controversies is less logical than the other. The difference is due rather to the fundamental assumptions of the antagonists being hostile, and these assumptions are derived from herd-suggestions; to the Liberal certain basal conceptions have acquired the quality of instinctive truth, have become a priori syntheses, because of the accumulated suggestions to which he has been exposed; and a similar explanation applies to the atheist, the Christian, and the Conservative. Each, it is important to remember, finds in consequence the rationality of his position flawless and is quite incapable of detecting in it the fallacies which are obvious to his opponent, to whom that particular series of assumptions has not been rendered acceptable by herd suggestion.”

Thus the public relations counsel has to consider the a priori judgment of any public he deals with before counseling any step that would modify those things in which the public has an established belief.

It is seldom effective to call names or to attempt to discredit the beliefs themselves. The counsel on public relations, after examination of the sources of established beliefs, must either discredit the old authorities or create new authorities by making articulate a mass opinion against the old belief or in favor of the new.

Edward L. Bernays, Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923), Part II, Chapter I, conclusion.

Elon Musk is — as far as I can tell — the first celebrity to fret publicly about population decline since the Progressives’ eugenics period, when the collapsing population idea was seen as a tragedy primarily in racial terms: demographers noticed that whites were going into demographic collapse first.

Elon can get away with it by having focused first on Japan, making the demagogic-progressive response of CRY RACIST! unsuitable. He tweeted about this back in May, to the consternation of the Perpetually Consternated.

But the truth of the matter is that Elon is right, and increasingly smart, unflusterable folks are recognizing the truth:

Note that today’s progressives can be seen to have taken old-fashioned Progressives’ worry from racist to anti-“human-racist,” extolling population collapse as a response to “the population bomb” which, somehow — with the left’s logrolling of their specially coded Get Out of Fail Free card — they never got stuck with the racist marker. But they should have, since over-population was always really a Problem With Brown People. The whole “population bomb” scenario was in fact always tinged by racism, if by the peculiar racist inversions typical of post-WWII technocratic-socialist thought.

That Elon is popularizing basic demographic truths, after decades and decades of hysterical ideological sub-rosa racist fearmongering, is interesting, to say the least.

twv

Why do people think hierarchy is bad and equality is good?

. . . as answered  on Quora. . . .

This is one of those questions that one might consider conducting a poll to find out the answer. But how would we word the questions, prompt the answers? And how would we know if and when the people themselves actually know why they value abstract conditions like inequality and hierarchy as they do? Many people have beliefs and values that they cannot articulate. Arguably, many basic values and attitudes are not possible to articulate accurately, with certitude.

Which is why we theorize, and then compare theories.

So, I’ll take a stab, then read others’ answers.

Everybody knows that people are unequal in different ways. You are superior to me in one way, I’m superior to you in another. This is a fact of life. And most sane people have no problem with these forms of inequality — and one reason some hyper-egalitarian ideologies drive people nuts is that they seem to rub up against the reality of multiform inequality.

But when contemplating hierarchies, we are not really talking about the diversity of inequalities, issue by issue, capacity by capacity, outcome by outcome. Hierarchies are recognizable by being persistent in human organization.

So, “other things being equal,” why would we grant others special positions of inequality that persist? Why would we organize patrols, work gangs, sports teams, etc., with established hierarchies that continue over time and extend over space beyond the natural outcomes of different capacities and talents and efforts, etc? Hierarchies are somewhat rigid in their persistence, and . . . what is the point of that added rigidity?

But take a step back, first. As most of us see human interaction and differences, all our inequalities tend to wash into a rough parity at a general level. Why should one person be exalted above others except on a piecemeal basis, according to each endeavor?

Equality makes sense to many of us even acknowledging extensive and diverse inequalities because, as I state, the inequalities are diverse But, generally, the idea that some people are better overall than others needs to be proved. And that general case requires some extra data.

When we establish hierarchies for a social function, we are trying to match capacities to task — we are trying to make it easier to accomplish some task. So the best berry-picker might be in charge of the berry-gathering group, and the best hunter in charge of the hunting party, and the best organizer in charge of selecting the special hierarchies, and so forth.

The reason many balk at hierarchies is that the rationale for selection of special status seems arbitrary or ill-chosen, or, if not arbitrary, chosen according to standards irrelevant to the function.

Which is why general hierarchies are challenged more often than specific, small-organizational hierarchies. Do I care to challenge the hierarchy of the local fire hall? No. But I may express more concern about the head of the county commission. It is the general, over-arching positions and hierarchies that get the most push-back. Part of this is the difficulty of determining merit, and part of this is that hierarchies are more questionable and challengeable the more basic they are — for, as I stated above, our many inequalities wash out into a rough parity at the basic, general level.

To restate: hierarchies are usually accepted and even demanded on the basis of some merit. But where the merit is harder to figure — and where multiple standards might not unreasonably vie for prominence in judging merit — then equality seems to be the de facto standard.

This is why we have ideological differences regarding hierarchies: leftists generally do not understand how merit works relating to property and markets, and they do not see property-ownership hierarchies as acceptable; or, sometimes if not always, the distribution of property is so obviously orthogonal to normal rationales for (and explanations of) social function. Rightists are generally more accepting of hierarchies, in part because they are more accepting of diversity of hierarchies, realizing that family hierarchies and church hierarchies and business hierarchies are not the same, and the same person high in one may be low in another.

One problem with political hierarchies is that they are based, originally, on the use of violence, so hunters and fighters tended to be conquerors and thus kings, not necessarily on wisdom or justice and the like. Which is why monopoly governance has generally been replaced with socialized governance in modern times, but limited at first to the core services of violence: defense of law and order, for example.

So the idea of socialized/democratized equality grew into dominance of the State because the hierarchies of old-fashioned class and royal monopoly privilege became too tangential to the administration of justice.

And then the idea became to spread this manner of hierarchy revision (by recourse to a baseline equality of citizenry) to other areas where the idea seems (to many of us) less relevant and much more problematic.

Obviously, I think both equality and hierarchy are natural to man, and quite relevant to many aspects of social life. Hierarchy is inevitable in any organization, and becomes more so the more one scales up the size of the organization. The more people in the organization, the more compelling is the case for establishing hierarchy. It’s a matter of efficiency and how decision-making and leadership work. Among equals, there’s a lot of argument to come to a consensus; the more the people, the more the argument. But in a hierarchy, the many have outsourced decision-making and inspiration to a few.

Or, should I say, upsourced?

It is my experience that people generally — and by this I mean normal people — really want leadership. Hierarchy is not a problem for most people. It is only when hierarchies fail to deliver on organization goals and social functions that questions of equality become over-riding. And hierarchies fail to deliver when the standards of performance and goals are diverse and when it is hard to figure the standards and the relevance of inputs to outputs.

Of course, there is another and more pernicious opposition to hierarchy that often masks as this completely legitimate preference for equality: envy and sub rosa competitiveness. One reason to oppose a hierarchy is because YOU want to be on top, and aren’t. So, to increase the likelihood of your own rise, or to punish another for holding a position you desire, you pretend to be for equality.

It is not always easy to determine whether the opposition to a hierarchy is born of desire for group achievement or passion for self-advance. But our literature gives us many clues to this. Shakespeare, especially, was good at dealing with this aspect of human nature.

twv

I like cryptocurrency (especially Bitcoin) as a hedge. Trouble is, crypto definitely does not serve as a hedge against the inevitable global electromagnetic storm. It is the opposite of a hedge.

To something inevitable but unpredictable in time.

While electromagnetic pulse warfare and even old-fashioned nuclear war could be as devastating — and similar in effect — as a coronal mass ejection such as the one that caused the 1859 Carrington Event, these conflict scenarios are limited by MAD. Solar flares are not so limited. They are not under any human control at all.

Given this, and given blockchain’s huge redundancy aspects (involving astounding energy consumption and economic costs), I’m not exactly gung ho on crypto.

But I’m completely negative about blockchain’s usage as inside money by the globalized banking system. Politicians’, bureaucrats’, bankers’, and the Davos Men’s lust for a completely digital currency must be opposed at all costs. Their much-ballyhooed move to get rid of cash is an End Times Scenario — it would spell the death knell for freedom, sure, but it would also rigidify the system and make civilization even more fragile than it is now . . . from the inevitable disaster of a major coronal mass ejection hitting the planet.

The fact that this is almost never mentioned during discussions of computerized money strikes me as insane. Our civilization revolves around electromagnetic technology. We are utterly dependent upon this, even more than on fossil fuels. And this must be factored in to our assessments of risk.

People sometimes look at me condescendingly, for my presumptuousness in taking on “the experts.” Well, call me a crank; no matter: for on this issue, I’m not wrong.

My number one policy aim is antifragility. Always has been — long before Taleb gave it its name. And post-modern politics is utterly oblivious to the notion, despite the popular buzzword ”sustainability.”

One of our political considerations must always be concern for ”external hits” to our ecosystem and socio-economic system. Right now, we have progressed our way into a predicament. Further progress must not jeopardize civilization to an even greater degree. And right now both the globalist totalitarians and the “ancap” libertarians seem hell-bent on pushing just such ”progress.”

twv

Until a recent video by Rebel Wisdom, I had never heard of Samo Burja. I just do not follow international affairs well enough, I guess. But Mr. Burja’s discussion of Putin and the Russian invasion of the Ukraine struck me as not only interesting, but very much along familiar lines:

This analyst makes three predictions:

1. China develops more financial alternatives to First World financial systems and offers them to rogue states around the world. (I’ve talked about this before, on Paul Jacob’s podcast a few weeks ago. This could help collapse the dollar, by the way.)

2. Russia successfully occupies large chunks of Ukraine that it did not control before. (Seems likely. Surely Putin’s keeping the eastern sectors, but, this man says, more than just the Donbas region.)

3. Putin remains in power for the next year.

He also says Russia will become something of a vassal state to China, which is something neither we nor the Russians should want. But it is something the Chinese quasi-commies want (why don’t we just call the CCP elite caste the warlords or oligarchs? Please advise). And it is something that the embargoes will ensure. This is also a point I’ve made before.

The Romney position that Russia is America’s most dangerous enemy — the position that Obama once mocked but now Democrats push with spittle flying — is something China needs us to believe, for I suspect (and, again, have said as much to friends) that China pushed Russia to do this as part of its plan to weaken America which would allow it to conquer Taiwan. That’s not the only end game, but it’s a huge one, and Burja identifies it as Xi Jinping’s life goal. Seems likely.

Given that China has invested so much in the Democratic Party (Biden being a paid stooge and almost certainly a traitor in technical terms, and worthy of the firing squad), that all of the media has rallied propaganda to this diversion is hardly surprising at all.

Above all I do not want WWIII, which I think is likely if Biden loses control of what remains of his senses. What I think the corrupt insider Democrats yearn for is a protracted set of brushfire wars with a weakened Russia. But pushing Russia is really, really dangerous. Past Ukrainian policy by the Dems has been as insane as their desire to regime change Assad and their “successful” regime change of Qaddafi. These people seem like fools, but I don’t know precisely what they want. But if they want a One World Government with the power center in Beijing, they appear to be doing great.

Secondarily I don’t want the U.S. to become any more like China. Or Russia. This element — an unintended effect of international conflict known to classical liberals for centuries — is also something that Mr. Burja makes clear.

In recent podcasts with Paul Jacob, I tried also to make this point:

First (6:50), I suggest that the COVID over-reaction police states of New Zealand and Australia maybe disqualify them from “free nation” status, and therefore as American allies. Then (9:46) I explain my concern over how disastrous American interventions have been generally — in one country after another — and most recently in Ukraine. And when I got to the subject of biolabs in Ukraine, Paul Jacob not only agreed with me but expressed a bigger worry: that these may have been established there the better to escape American law prohibiting bioweapons research (just as the American military did with torture under Bush/Cheney). And I went on (22:39) to suggest that the current war started in 2020 with the release and psy-op packaging of SARS-CoV-2 into global society, courtesy of the Wuhan biolab, and that the point of China egging on Russia was to demoralize Americans from war to allow China an easier walk-in over the Taiwan Strait. And Democrats, because they are basically crazed enviro-nuts who think that energy is bad and are willing to make Americans poor the better to virtue-signal their commitment to “the planet,” are helping China along.

This is not the first time American foreign policy has been shanghaied to subvert our own freedom. Without any pressure from Spain, the United States succumbed to liberticidal imperialism during the McKinley administration, as William Graham Sumner made so clear in “The Conquest of the United States by Spain.”

The extent to which the Democrats at large are bought off by the Chinese is probably limited. Actual, direct “Manchurian Candidate” subversion of an American political figure is probably limited to Joe Biden himself (though a subverted president is nothing to sneeze at). The rest just go along with subversion for the very reason subversion works, according to Yuri Bezmenov: you cannot subvert someone who does not want to be subverted, and Democrats have been pinko for my whole lifetime. They love big government transfer programs and all the rest, and since they themselves get involved in the government racket, they can add class-interest to their lust for subversion of the American system . . . which once upon a time was based on private property and distributed responsibility.

Which is why Democrats became such true believers in Trump’s vaccine program as well as enthusiastic pushers of lockdowns and mask mandates. They do not care about medical results, not really: they care about regimenting society, abridging the freedom of all for the sake of all (the basic idea of republican governance, but also of socialism) and, especially, of targeted victim groups. This is, after all, the basic game progressives play in psycho-politics: sacrifice by all for the benefit of a few. But the utility of the pandemic to the Chinazis and the globalists has been waning. People around the world now chafe under the lockdowns and idiotic (and obviously ineffective) mask mandates.

So: invasion to “the rescue” — the rescue of globalists’ subversion plans. The Great Reset and all.

Just how limp a noodle the COVID flail has become can be seen in how kid-gloved YouTube has been to Dr. John Campbell. In a series of videos, recently, he has explored the data that shows how destructive pandemic policy has been. And he has been allowed to continue. A half year ago he would have been de-platformed by the Deep State’s Internet service wing, Google/Alphabet.

And it is worth noting how amazing Campbell’s turn has been on the subject. Steve Kirsch, writing on Substack, explains the situation pretty well: “a former advocate of the vaccine, trusted by millions of people, has now realized he’s been deceived and he’s not happy about it at all.”

Paul Jacob wrote about Dr. Campbell’s discussion of recent Ivermectin study results, in “This Is Just Huge.” Kirsch fixes upon the doctor’s consideration of recent revelations from Pfizer about adverse effects of the mRNA treatment.

I share this not because the news seems all that new to me, but because many folks are just now realizing how wrong “the experts” were. In the wake of proof that the government has lied to us about the safety of mRNA coronavirus “vaccines,” we now get a lot of “how could people reject this information” and “how could they have suppressed information about adverse effects” sputterings.

Oh, the naivety. It is so very easy. Those on the inside had a lot of money and prestige on the line, while the masses of people are generally serviles, demanding to be saved by higher-ups. What I’ve seen over and over on this latter is incredulity that great groups of people could commit fraud and great harm, knowingly coupled with this: the belief that some must be sacrificed for the greater good — if some people must die that the majority be saved, all the better!

This sacrifice ideology, absolutely central to life in a wealth-transfer state, has been endemic for a century now. It is a sign that people have tacitly embraced what they would otherwise, in moments of clarity, describe as “fascist” or “Nazi” or “communist” principles. Because of this, along with propaganda-induced fear and tribal allegiances, the masses and the elites have pushed dangerous and deadly-to-some pseudo-vaccines while suppressing less expensive yet more efficient treatment and prophylactic regimens.

I think this is a sign of a decadent civilization.

To me, a decent, life-affirming political philosophy begins with the realization that majorities and even consensus opinion can be wrong. The low-level democratic idea insists that only a few “bad people” can commit great evils. This is obviously way off, and is the wedge notion that allows for a massacre society. Which we now live in.

And is that why we can actually encounter leftist Democrats talk about nuclear first strikes?

How low our society has sunk. But it can go lower, and, I fear, will. Under pressure to fulfill the entelechies they have already nurtured — let their adopted memes take over their lives and infect others — and as subverted by Chinese psy-ops and their own fears of imperialist Russia, American Democrats and neocons could actually destroy civilization. All it takes is a few nuclear bombs. Or a real plague. Or globalist totalitarianism.

twv

A lot of people have constructed propagandistic memes to the effect that ”things would be different” had Kyle been black. Every one of these memes have failed because the memetic engineer could not engineer the precisely opposite situation to Kyle Rittenhouse’s. So let me try. I mean, it’s a worthy counterfactual, right?

What if Kyle were black?

What if the 17-year-old African-American male traveled across a state line to his father’s community after a White Lives Matter protest turned violent and burned down a huge hunk of his father’s town. The protest was over the police shooting a white guy during a domestic squabble.

Now, the trick in this example is not to make everything opposite — this white man would have to become a white woman, right, to be “completely” opposite? If “make everything opposite” were the rule in constructing such examples, we would merely engage in Bizarro World japery. (So this haploid is carrying a ray gun…) So, let’s keep it close. And let’s make initial spark for the ”protests” this: a white criminal man got shot by police while reaching for his knife after walking away from the police who had told him to stand down. Same as the Kenosha criminal. And this man survives, though most protesters think he’s dead. It’s only the races we need to flip.

So a White Live Matter group protested the shooting, and the protest turns quickly to riot, which spreads. And the cops stand down, letting it all burn: the cops are on the side of the whites, this time, after all!

Amidst this, a number of heroic black people take to the streets to help victims, put out fires, and wash away graffiti. Our black Kyle is carrying a scary-to-liberals rifle and as the evening wears on gets chased by other black people who beat him with a skate board and try to take away his weapon. Some shots are fired, and our black Kyle kills two men, black, and wounds another, also black.

For his trouble, the Republican presidential candidate calls this Kyle a black supremacist and the major media constantly calls Kyle a murderer, moments after, and all the way into his trial.

What are the most unbelievable things about this scenario, as written? To make it the most apt opposite-race example, what should I change?

twv