Bless, did I hit a nerve Cletus
Perhaps you need to visit a gay bar and get rid of all that pent up frustration.
I would like to thank Cantankerous Socialist @Cante12175815 for confirming my previous diagnosis.—Joe]
Bless, did I hit a nerve Cletus
Perhaps you need to visit a gay bar and get rid of all that pent up frustration.
I would like to thank Cantankerous Socialist @Cante12175815 for confirming my previous diagnosis.—Joe]
There have to be more people at different levels in the organization, in different parts of the organization, who are given the platform and the ability to initiate, to mobilize, to move things forward. It doesn’t only live at the C-Suite.
And ideally, if it’s done well, each person, no matter what part of the company you’re in, feels that they have a stake in this climate change response. Nobody is exempting themselves because they don’t know enough about climate. An effective response is one where everyone has something to add here and is a part of the response.
Catherine Clifford @CATCLIFFORD
September 26, 2021
Climate psychologist says neither gloom-and-doom nor extreme solution-obsessed optimism is the best way to discuss climate change productively
[I knew there were dog psychologists, horse psychologists, and I found out there are cat psychologists and even cow psychologists. But climate psychologists? Wow!
I wonder if she has a heavy client load. Are there a lot of climates in need of a shrink?
To be fair, I poked around a little bit I can can’t find where she claims she helps climates with their mental health issues.
I do wonder about her mental health some though. She seems to presume facts not in evidence. I’m fairly certain her claim that everyone should feel “they have a stake in the climate change response” is not true. For example, there are those who are more concerned about another ice age putting a sheet of ice a mile thick over southern Canada and the northern states than the possibility of a dozen feet of ocean rise. Hence, if we really think we can affect the climate then we should error on the side of keeping the earth warm rather than on keeping it cool.
Does she want those people to feel like they have a stake in the climate change response? Or is she is living in a delusional world where everyone agrees with her view of reality. In other words, is she a liar or delusional? It could be both, but I have insufficient evidence to conclusively determine which.—Joe]
An analysis of data collected across 10 world regions suggests that men’s self-esteem is more strongly tied to their sexual success than women’s. The findings were published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences.
The study authors accordingly proposed that having a greater number of past sexual partners should increase self-esteem. They further reasoned that this positive link between self-esteem and number of past sexual partners should be stronger among men since greater sexual acceptance is more adaptive for men. That is, men’s ability to pass on their genes relies strongly on having a high number of sexual partners, while women’s success in passing on their genes rests on having higher quality sexual partners who will invest in offspring.
The first thing that came to mind when reading this was, “Correlation doesn’t mean causation. Perhaps having a high self-esteem, as a consequence of such things as job success, physical attractiveness, etc. contributed to the higher number of sexual partners.”
The authors are concerned about that as well:
The authors note that past experimental studies have found that manipulating self-esteem seems to impact sexual desire differently among men and women, suggesting that self-esteem might be “both a cause and a consequence of short-term mating success in men.”
“Future work should seek to disentangle the many functions of self-esteem within men’s short-term mating psychology,” the researchers write, “including work to identify how self-esteem may serve specially-designed functions as both a consequence, and a cause, of short-term mating success.”
Many years ago I would hear things to the effect that women with high number of sexual partners by women was frequently a result of low self-esteem. At the time I knew two young women (in their mid 20s) who that seemed to apply to but it did not appear to be a consistent pattern. More recently with women in their 50s and 60s I have talked to about numbers of sex partners don’t seem to show any correlation one way or the other. But this did not involve any accurate self-esteem measurements.
More study is required before, if ever, the head shrinks start prescribing lots of sexual partners to increase self-esteem.
Their hatred of guns is deeply rooted in their hatred of personal responsibility. The very idea that you might be responsible for your own safety is abhorrent to them. The very concept that the maintenance of personal freedom and responsibility might actually be worth living a more dangerous life is simply a repellent concept to them. They want to be kept. They want others to make their choices for them. They want to live the comfortable, gray, meaningless lives of a pet.
People that do not desire this are lamented by them, not because those people are wrong, but because those people demonstrate to them how absolutely pathetic they are, and they hate that.
Utopians believe that the world could be a perfect place except for this one group that is stopping the world from becoming a perfect place.
May 31, 2021
Woke Ideology Mimics Precursors to Totalitarian Slaughter, Experts Say
[See also this YouTube video.
We are facing “Woke” and Marxist utopians infiltrated into government, schools, and many large businesses. They are accumulating power and each concession of power increases their lust for more.
History shows us this is a well worn path to genocide.
As Tal Bachman notes at Steynonline, it’s now our state religion, a state religion in a country that—constitutionally and for good reason—isn’t supposed to have one.
But “Wokism” is yet more than that, too. It’s a mass psychosis similar to many that have arisen throughout history when the masses followed leaders who, in their zeal or self-interest, took them to disastrous ends.
America is a great playpen of civilization filled with toddler adults who have never experience the violent brutality of life outside the safe confines of our political borders.
So any display of reality confuses them the same way a toddler is confused as to why we can’t help the poor homeless meth addict.
April 25, 2021
Comment on Facebook.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Small-minded, even ignorant people see salvation in controlling the minds and lives of others. Is it a mass delusion that they believe they are actually “fighting racism,” that they’re doing this for white people’s own good? Or are these the same efforts at control that have been around since humans created civilizations?
February 20, 2021
‘Critical Race Theory’ Costs a Brave Smith College Whistleblower Her Job
[There are alphas in most social animals so I expect the answer is that control of others has extremely deep genetic roots which go well beyond the first human civilizations.
And of course “racism” is just the current tool of choice in our country. In other times and places the tool was chosen to match a vulnerable target. Classic example from early in the 20th Century are Hitler with the Jewish (and other) people while Stalin had Trotsky, counter revolutionaries, capitalists, etc.
In the U.S., in addition to “racism”, some of the tools of control are “climate change”, “equality”, “social justice”, etc. And those tools are used against the political right. Don’t believe for a second it is actual racism they believe they are fighting. If that were the case you wouldn’t have people talking about multiracial Whiteness. Or claiming that asking students to show their work in class is “white supremacy”. These two examples are just the beginning of what is to come.
History is full of examples to provide hints as to how this may turn out. If the people who would be masters get their way, as they did in the USSR, the bar to pass the purity tests will continually raise. Even now things like the “master” branch in software version control, and “whitelists” and “blacklists” have come under attack. And non-trivial amounts of resources are being expended to satisfy the ever increasing demands of the power hungry.
Each victory for these people increases their thirst for more. They get a thrill from it. Even a “high”. They absolutely love it and in more candid moments admit this. Such people need to be stood up to because the end game is far worse then standing up to them now.
Here is one brave woman standing up:
If she can do it so can you.—Joe]
With HR127 being brought forward in early February of 2021, somebody tipped me off to a very small page where the phrase of the Second Amendment was being censored. So we tried to replicate what we saw with an experiment. On Monday the 15th of February, First I posted a screenshot of the censored post, and it was fact-checked and censored behind the fact-check wall. Then I took a screenshot of the actual Second Amendment on Google and the same thing happened.
They were trying to tie it back to some misquoting of George Washington. They were saying the Second Amendment was fact-checked as not true.
February 18, 2021
1776 United: Censoring the Second Amendment
Perhaps, in their reality, it doesn’t actually exist. I’m okay with that. But their friends and relatives really should see that they get the help they need rather than letting them let them cause others harm when they are experiencing such delusions.—Joe]
If you’re over 40 you’ve lived through at least three epic financial bubbles: junk bonds in the 1980s, tech stocks in the 1990s, and housing in the 2000s. Each was spectacular in its own way, and each threatened to take down the whole financial system when it burst.
But they pale next to what’s happening today. Where those past bubbles were sector-specific, which is to say the mania and resulting carnage occurred mostly within one asset class, today’s bubble is spread across, well, pretty much everything – hence the term “everything bubble.”
When this one pops there won’t be a lot of hiding places.
February 8, 2021
Is This The Biggest Financial Bubble Ever? Hell Yes It Is
[I wrote about complex systems and emergent behavior last night. Our financial markets are another example of emergent behavior. The rule sets are large and complex but behavior still emerges that some may claim can only be explained by a conspiracy. But, again, no conspiracy need exist.
There is a financial bubble about to pop. Simultaneously there is a growing mass delusion about the existence of millions of “extremists” who must be “canceled” or even killed. And there is a pandemic (real or imagined, it doesn’t matter much in the context here) that are all contributing to epic shear forces in our society.
Prepare accordingly. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.—Joe]
Lyle comments here that:
Clearly, you’re pointing to a conspiracy.
I was about to press the “Post Comment” button a couple times and kept thinking of something else I wanted to add. It became post material rather than comment material.
Study a little bit about complex systems and emergent behavior. A simple example is John Conway’s Game of Life. A very simple rule set (read the “Explanation” on the web page) results in complex behavior and patterns. In addition to the default initial value click on three square in a row either vertical or horizontally and let than run.** The “rules of life” didn’t include explicit instructions for that pattern. Those patterns emerge from a very a simple rule set.
Or even think about a situation where a moderately large group of people (say a few thousand) are put on an unpopulated island and interact with each other with the simple rule of “do not intentionally inflict harm on others”. Or perhaps the slightly more complex rule set of The Ten Commandments.
Given the correct environment with sufficient readily available natural resources, won’t that group of people develop specialized skills, transportation systems, markets, entertainment, schools, etc.? And it will all happen without the need for any any “Master Planner” or “conspiracy” of the entire, or even a majority, of the people. Did that rule (or set of rules) include plans for some people to be farmers and others to be bakers and merchants? No. That behavior emerged from the simple rule or rules.
I claim that there exist a moderately large subset of people who enjoy, or at least get some sort of reward, from exerting power over others. Given the correct environment* that simple “rule” can result in the complex “cancel culture” and even genocidal behavior periodically emerging. No conspiracy required.
* I suspect a necessary component of the environment may be related to population size and perhaps population density. I suspect this because a certain amount of objectification is required. And with small group sizes objectification is difficult. Do we see tribes of a couple hundred people murder 10% of their own group? I don’t think so. I think the group size has to be in the thousands before that behavior sometimes emerges.
** A very cool one I just discovered is the following:
That is a cube with three on a side.
Religion is very comforting to people because it offers complete guidance about every aspect of one’s life from what to eat, whom to have sex with, to which exact minute to light a candle. Today, religion has been replaced by “loving omnipotent” governments that offer the same.
Gad Saad @GadSaad
Tweeted on February 3, 2021
[I see the wisdom in this assessment.
More importantly, I see the terrifying consequences of this development.
What I desire to see is a large majority of the people able to think for themselves, arrive at good decisions, execute on those decisions, and take responsibility for their actions.
I fear my desires are beyond the capacity of our current population and certainly beyond their current programming.—Joe]
Rooted in America’s ugly history of white supremacy, indigenous dispossession and anti-blackness, multiracial whiteness is an ideology invested in the unequal distribution of land, wealth, power and privilege — a form of hierarchy in which the standing of one section of the population is premised on the debasement of others. Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of whiteness as a political color and not simply a racial identity — a discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.
In the post-Trump era, the challenge will be to prevail over the extremism of Trump’s White majority while trying to prevent the politics of whiteness from becoming an increasingly multiracial affair.
January 15, 2021
To understand Trump’s support, we must think in terms of multiracial Whiteness
[See also what Ed Driscoll has to say about this.
Just as it was in the USSR there is an ever changing, ever increasing, level of purity required by the political left. Their creativity has no limits. The absurdity is applauded, not scorned, because it allows them to continue their programs of hate and destruction. The exercise of power intoxicates them and they will say and do whatever they must to feed and justify their addiction.
This is our future.
If gender doesn’t depend upon biology then what makes you think whiteness depends on skin color?
Try to keep up comrade. Be thankful that today it is just being doxed and deplatformed. Soon, if you don’t understand these things as they have been revealed, you will be spending time in a reeducation center having things such as this explained to you in much simpler terms.—Joe]
Every Republican now calling for unity is like the abusive husband who beats the shit out of his wife for 4 years, and then, when he’s finally arrested, says, “Baby, if you don’t press charges we can make this work.”
Ellen Meister @EllenMeister
Tweeted on January 9, 2021
[And this, my psychology students, is called “Projection”.
It has been the Democrats who I have been hearing calling for unity.
These people are evil, incredibly ignorant, and/or have severe mental issues.
The Democrats abuse of President Trump over the last four years, and now Republicans in general has been absolutely legendary. And now they want “unity” as they ban dissent, cause Trump supporters to get fired, and deplatform websites that allow the allow free speech?
Good luck with that guys. You’re going to need it.
One measurement of how unified they have made our country are the 10s of thousands of troops in D.C. we have for the inauguration.—Joe]
Darkness at Noon stands as an unequaled fictional portrayal of the nightmare politics of our time. Its hero is an aging revolutionary, imprisoned and psychologically tortured by the Party to which he has dedicated his life. As the pressure to confess preposterous crimes increases, he relives a career that embodies the terrible ironies and human betrayals of a totalitarian movement masking itself as an instrument of deliverance. Almost unbearably vivid in its depiction of one man’s solitary agony, it asks questions about ends and means that have relevance not only for the past but for the perilous present. It is —- as the Times Literary Supplement has declared —- “A remarkable book, a grimly fascinating interpretation of the logic of the Russian Revolution, indeed of all revolutionary dictatorships, and at the same time a tense and subtly intellectualized drama.”
Darkness at Noon
[I finished listening to this book last Saturday. It was haunting.
If you think Gulag Archipelago, Nineteen Eighty Four, and Animal Farm have something important to say you will find Darkness at Noon at or near the top of that list in the same genre.
It’s a novel, first published in 1940, but it was based on interviews with numerous real people within the USSR during the 1920s and 1930s. The main character is a composite of several real people.
There were a couple of things which really jarred me. One was there was a time, early on during the purges, that political criminals were arrested and sent to prisons which were more like resorts of beautiful gardens and lawns where they could be counseled about their errors of their ways. These “prisons” had better living conditions than the environments most of prisoners came from. This reminded me of Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler thinking that if he just talked to the rioters they would see the error of their ways, and the similar beliefs of the people behind the “defund the police” movement. Apparently the socialist mind cannot, at least initially, comprehend that people could be opposed to implementing the socialist utopia. The alternative is for me to believe the people of today, instead of independently arriving at the same mindset, have a playbook/script they are following and haven’t read the complete book yet to see how it’s really done.
The other thing that really stuck with me was how they got confessions. The confessions came from interrogations which lasted several days or even a month. The prisoner was confronted with evidence that was mostly true but the interpretation was twisted in some way that perhaps didn’t matter all that much in the present context. After sleep deprivation and hours of grilling the prisoner would sign the confession of the slightly twisted interpretation. Then a new piece of evidence would be presented. Again it would be twisted in the same direction as the previous evidence the prisoner had already signed off on. Eventually they would sign off on that one too. The process would continue like this until a complete narrative leading to the conclusion that the prisoner was such of a mindset that it was obvious they could not have had any other motive than the assassination of “Number 1” when they briefly spoke to the cook at the café where “Number 1” was to get his food a week later.
And, of course, as I have pointed out before, the every tightening of the purity tests that made a loyal, decorated, party member on one day into a saboteur the next week.
Today in our country, the mindset of the political left is racing down the same path as Russia of just over 100 years ago. They may believe they are “progressives” leading the world to new utopia, but that belief and mindset is a regression to that of the turn of the 20th century on a different continent. And, again, the destination is not utopia. It is dystopian nightmare of terror.—Joe]
Also, there was a tiny bit of violence. Tell me again about how much you hate violence. Neighbor, after 2020, I am all ears on that one.
January 8, 2021
The great coup of 2021
[It’s a bit long but I thought he did a good job of summarizing the different sides of the situation with a good bit of psychology.—Joe]
Yesterday I posed this quote from someone:
The constitution is the conservative equivalent of a gun-free zone.
I followed up with this deliberately very open ended question:
Now, can we use that insight and turn it into what needs to be done next?
The comments indicated everyone took a much narrower view of things than I had. One even took bizarre break from reality saying that my post meant I, “decided to go full-on Brownshirt/Blackshirt/Silvershirt” regarding the election. What? I wasn’t even talking about the election. How did they get there? Did they think they were able to read my mind through the Internet? That was really weird.
Here is what actually happened.
When I read the quote it was like first few nanoseconds of the big bang. Out of nothing there exploded a whole universe. It was like how some people describe their first LSD experience. I’ve never used LSD so I wouldn’t know for certain but that is my best analogy for how it affected me.
There were three comments (here, here, and here) which accurately touched an extremely small fraction of that universe that I saw unfold. And it was all about the past and the present. I was hoping for something more about the future as I was pretty sure I had explored enough of the past and present and satisfied myself that there wasn’t a whole lot more to be learned from those domains. I could be wrong about that so I present that part of my expanding universe for comments, corrections, and additional observations.
But what I really want is for people to think about and suggest a solution to the problem that can be implemented in the near future.
The authors of the constitution could have set up a separate branch of government which had the job of enforcing the adherence to the original intent. If not this then at least explicitly given the Federal courts some independent enforcement capability and protection from court packing. This may not have been practical or even possible but an attempt in this direction might have made some difference.
This attempts to address the issue, as McChuck, in the comments said, “The Constitution failed because it had no “OR ELSE” clause.”
At numerous critical times there were fairly clear cut issues before the courts which probably, at least a simple majority of people decided the Constitution was inadequate for the present circumstances. And rather than go the long route and get an amendment to the constitution through the process the courts allowed a short cut. This short cut was then used for things not nearly so clear cut. The short cut became a super highway with no restrictions.
I haven’t done the research but a couple very early, reasonably well known examples of such “clear cut issues” were the Lewis and Clark expedition and the Louisiana Purchase. Where does the constitution allow that in it’s enumerated powers?
There are probably hundreds if not thousands of case where little short cuts were taken over the centuries and they enabled all kinds of criminal trespass on the constitution.
What if, instead of politicians and judges instead of giving these short cuts a blind eye, they had handled it differently? What if they had said, “I think this is a good idea. I think this is within to domain of proper government power. BUT, it is also outside of the powers granted to the government”? Let’s, as rapidly as is practical, push through a narrowly scoped constitutional amendment to address this “clear cut issue”. This would have at least attempted to prevent the short cut from becoming a superhighway.
But the politicians of the time didn’t see, didn’t care, or wanted the superhighway and neither of those things happened.
The U.S. government debt is almost $28 trillion with $159 trillion in unfunded liabilities and constantly going up. Had the original intent of the U.S. constitution been adhered to that could not have happened. The superhighway of criminal trespass on the constitution is is a superhighway to disaster.
The criminal trespass on our personal liberties are just as gargantuan as the economic disaster. The First, Second, and Fourth enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights may have the most lanes of the superhighway over them but all of them, with the possible exception of the Third Amendment, have been paved over with at least a bike path clearly marked where there was once a tall fence with no gate and a NO TRESPASSING sign on it.
People who believe the constitution should be respected according to original intent started talking with each other. The Internet made it far easier to connect with others of a similar mindset. They realize, “Not only is the government infringing upon our rights, the courts aren’t coming to our aid.”
The criminals see the Internet chatter and see erosion of their voting base as more people come up to speed on the situation. The criminals shadow ban people. They freeze their accounts for a day or a week. Then they start completely banning people.
This couple was completely banned by Facebook and they have little* to no idea what it was about. A few weeks later they were both banned within minutes of each other from Instagram. All they posted on Instagram were family pictures. No explain was given. No appeal was possible.
Other people have received some clues. And it’s over the tiniest of stuff:
They are making every post of mine with #DontCaliforniaMyTexas as hate speech and deleting it. I got one day in jail for it
In the last week it was the President of the United States who permanently banned from Twitter. Shortly after POTUS moved to Parler, Apple, Google, and Amazon in a matter of just a few days deplatformed their apps and then the entire site. Poof! Gone! The company is possibly permanently destroyed.
Yesterday morning AR15.com was booted from GoDaddy (see also here). They are now back up on AWS Amazon. I wonder how long that will last as AWS Amazon was the host for Parler.
“Maybe they are being hyper sensitive to people of any political persuasion”, you suggest. It doesn’t look like that to me and others:
Big Tech did not remove House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s accounts when she called for “uprisings” against the Trump administration. Facebook and Twitter did not target Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when she claimed that allegedly marginalized groups have “no choice but to riot.” These platforms did not act against Kamala Harris when she said the riots “should not” stop.
This week, Joe Biden condemned the Capitol rioters, saying, “What we witnessed yesterday was not dissent, it was not disorder, it was not protest. It was chaos. They weren’t protesters, don’t dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists. It’s that basic, it’s that simple.”
Yet he refused to speak in those terms when Black Lives Matter and antifa militants were throwing Molotov cocktails at federal buildings, setting up “autonomous zones,” and burning down cities. Instead, he condemned Trump for holding up a Bible at a church — without mentioning the fact that that very church had been set on fire the night before.
What makes you think it will end with social media? What if the political left pulls your Internet connection for some flimsy excuse, or none at all? You think that would be going too far because Internet is essentially a requirement of life these days? Really? You think that would stop them? Do you think I am extrapolating way out into never-never land? “That can’t happen here?”
What if banks refused to do business with you. Wouldn’t that be worse than pulling your Internet connection? Guess what…The Obama administration was telling banks, “If you do business with risky customers, such as gun manufactures or dealers, you will suffer the consequences.” It was called Operation Choke Point.
What about other services such as FedEx, UPS, USPS, your water, waste disposal, and electricity? They didn’t “censor” you, you can still print a newsletter or hold a sign up on the street corner, right? And as long as it wasn’t a government entity refusing you service it’s entirely legit, right?
It used to be motels, restaurants, gasoline stations, etc. could, and did, refuse service to people based on their own criteria. There was a Federal law passed which prohibited such discrimination when it was based on the grounds of “race, color, religion, or national origin.” But it doesn’t protect you if you happen to be one of those nasty people who believe the constitution means what it says.
Do not be surprised if there aren’t soon “blacklists” that result in a surprising number of restrictions on what we normally consider public services. Don’t think so? Today Senator Chuck Schumer called for authorities to add the Capitol rioters to a national no-fly list.
The net result of this? Individual constitutionalists are, metaphorically, standing on some random street corner holding up homemade signs saying, “Repent! The End is Near!” Thousands of criminals occasionally glance at the “Gun-free zone” sign as they zoom by on the nearby superhighway at 100+ MPH and snicker.
This is where I was/am hoping to get some discussion. How can we regain a limited government and our personal liberties?
An armed rebellion? Maybe. But I’m not seeing that as a high probability path. I could see that bringing down the government. But I don’t see that as necessarily building a consensus for the resurrections of limited government rising from the ashes. And your going to start your own cancel culture with a scoped rifle? And how does that work out? You shoot every politician with a ‘D’ beside their name? Then what? Hold another election with the same people voting (and/or cheating) as last time?
And at what point to you start shooting? Are you justified in shooting if you get booted off Facebook or Twitter? And who would you shoot if you somehow managed to convince yourself it was justified? Who do you shoot if some anonymous bureaucrat told your bank to stop doing business with you?
What’s the path to victory here? I am a details oriented guy and as I dig into the details I’m not seeing a viable path.
There is the Lyle option, as I like to think of it. A (supposed) return to Protestant values. This is, perhaps, due to the Second Coming—this isn’t entirely clear to me. I largely dismiss this, not just because I don’t believe in the existence of god(s) but because if the constitution was originally divinely inspired then why did it go so terrible wrong and how can we expect to be better the second time around?
The best I have been able to come up with is that we are probably headed for a Minsky Moment and/or a currency crisis in the somewhat near future. This could be a worldwide event and it could involve the collapse of our currency and perhaps our government. Perhaps out of the ashes of the collapse a more constrained government will have more appeal and will rise.
I see this second option as more probable of success, but still improbable, because the government size proved to be its own downfall rather than being brought down by individualist rebels. Clear and positive proof of big government failure is probably required to convince a majority of people to try small government again.
What I don’t see is a high probability of success path that can be traversed by a few people on the street corners with their handmade signs.
* Barron recently told me, “I may have been tagged because I didn’t use the complete spelling of my last name.” Yet I know people who have been using completely, and pretty obviously, fake names for their Facebook accounts for years.
“Listen to us”, scream the population.
“Shut up and do what you’re told”, reply their leaders.
In the face of dissent the first instinct of illegitimate leadership is to crack down on the population. But crackdowns never make it better.
Instead they always make the country more volatile and more dangerous.
The people in charge rarely understand that. They don’t want to. They don’t care to learn or listen because all this conversation is a referendum on them and their leadership.
So they clamp down harder. “Obey I tell you! Obey!”
This is the Romanov program. It ends badly. Every. Single. Time. But that doesn’t mean they wont’ try it again. Of course they will. Because it’s their nature. It’s how we got here in the first place.
Millions of Americans sincerely believe the last election was fake. You can dismiss them as crazy. You can call them conspiracy theorists. You can kick them off Twitter.
But that won’t change their minds.
Rather than trying to change their minds, to convince them and reassure them the system is real, that democracy works, as you would do if you cared about the country or the people who live here, our new leaders will try to silence them. What happened today will be used by the people taking power to justify stripping you of the rights you were born with as an American. Your right to speak without being censored. Your right to assemble. To not be spied upon. To make a living. To defend your family, most critically. These are the most basic and ancient freedoms that we have.
When thousands of your countrymen storm the capital building you don’t have to like it. We don’t. You can be horrified by the violence, as we said and we’ll say it again, we are horrified. It’s wrong. But if you don’t bother to pause and learn a single thing from it. From your citizens storming your capital building? Then you’re a fool.
You lack wisdom and you lack self-awareness. You have no place running a country.
We got to this sad chaotic day for a reason. It is not your fault. It is their fault.
January 6, 2021
Tucker: Our only option is to fix what’s causing this.
[You could nitpick a few things but overall he did a good job of describing the current situation and matching what I think the near future will bring.—Joe]
Yesterday, I wrote about the sense that the fracture in our shared sense of reality seems to be accelerating. I asked whether platforms ought to take it as a moral responsibility to reverse that divide — and, if so, how. Today, I advocate for one smaller but still difficult and essential step in that direction.
It’s time for Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to remove Trump.
January 6, 2021
IT’S TIME TO DEPLATFORM TRUMP
[Note: I original scheduled this for next Tuesday as I had some other content I thought was of higher priority. Things are obviously happening much faster than I expected.
That is so totally ignorant of human, and particularly U.S., psychology that it is hilariously funny.
Deplatforming is a relatively easy obstacle to overcome by someone with Trump’s stature. Even if every platform in the country succumbed to the rage mob he could rent a server, in a different country if necessary, and start his own blog. Individuals will post his material on Facebook and other sites with minor obfuscation to defeat the attempts at automated blockage.
If they block his site at the border encrypted VPN’s will bring his material in. Make it a crime to distribute his material and it will be distributed in a way that makes it attributable to tyrannical politicians.
It will be a fun game! I almost look forward to it.
The attempt at blocking him will make him all the more widely read. And all the time he will be mocking those who tried to silence him.
And that gives Newton a pass, assuming they actually believed what they wrote, on the stupidity of believing an attempt at silencing someone admired by millions is going to bring unity and tranquility. Trump is popular because he expresses a view shared by those millions. It seems the political left believes he created mindless followers. It’s probably more correct to say the masses created Trump.
As Michael Malice said the other day, “They thought Trump was the river but he was the dam.”:
I am of the opinion that if your goal is freedom then having your political enemies rapidly becoming tyrants furthers your long term goal more than hurts it.—Joe]
A small number of Covid patients who had never experienced mental health problems are developing severe psychotic symptoms weeks after contracting the coronavirus.
December 28, 2020
Small Number of Covid Patients Develop Severe Psychotic Symptoms
[That’s scary stuff.
I know three people who have recovered from COVID. One was daughter Xenia.—Joe]