1. There is a slight concern that I have fallen into the trap of the ideologue. I read a lot, but it’s become for its own sake. On politics, I have largely lost even the lurkers since I now make a point of saying “read the whole thing before you mouth off”. But that’s politics, and that’s probably the only time the anyone asks anything of especially the progressive politico. God knows their ideology doesn’t demand anything of them. 

This makes strengthening one’s views rather difficult. We only rise, individually and culturally, to the level of the toughest opponents. Individually and culturally, this makes a “cancelling” views we personally don’t have the courage and intelligence to contend with a “solution” that makes the canceller weaker.. Jonathan Haidt has done a great deal of research into this, the results of which gave us “The Colliding of the American Mind” (a brilliant reference to Alan Bloom’s “Closing of the American Mind”) and “The Righteous Mind”.

The only place where it is impossible to strengthen one’s views through the strength of the opponent’s argument is in the realm of gun control. In every major case, it is clear that the left simply does not believe in self-defense. If they do, the standard for justified use of force is that you are allowed one shot, in highly specific circumstances, after having run through a checklist. A checklist that takes 15 seconds to run through and you have less than 5 seconds to react.

That’s not even a mischaracterization, at this point. I saw it twice with the Minnesota ICE case, and I still remember the Rittenhouse arguments. On the (oddly comfortable) progressive/activist left, the self-defense guidelines are written by people who haven’t read a pamphlet on life-threatening situations and can’t conceive of why someone wouldn’t be stone cold rational -in- that situation. In the last dustup since the shooting, I have seen self-defense “standards” such as the defender being allowed one bullet maximum, and the idea that a car isn’t being used as a deadly weapon until it actually hits you. We will get to the progressive “standard”

2. Activists speak almost exclusively in terms of what they’re against and who the reason for our current malaise is. In order to keep their jobs, and keep the anger oven warm, they only in vague terms about what they’re for and how it will functionally be achieved. And yet, those who most often talk of virtue speak of things they don’t appear to posses. Meanwhile, the “terminally online” crowd has grown to include the older set that is less likely to be able to determine a reliable source from AI slop. Meanwhile, those who -are- technologically literate are coming out of the educational system barely reading above a 6^th-grade level.

And somehow, some way, this stupid, directionless, perpetually angry people is going to create something good by themselves. They can’t define good, they don’t have the personality to bring people to their side. They -do- have rules, though. However, those change at a moment’s notice and are retroactive. So it is that we have a revolving door of cancellations, this is what the Left is known for and it is becoming a larger problem on the right.

Suppressing instead of dealing with views one disagrees with is part of the reason insane views like MAGA’s hatred of the “other du jour”, if you will and the return of Critical Race Theory has managed to take hold. But this philosophical cowardice and illiteracy is not a surprise to some of us. John Stuart Mill once observed that “social intolerance” of theses views doesn’t kill anyone, but it doesn’t defeat extremist views either. In fact, the Overton window shifts to make insane ideas like the growing ethnonationalist cult on the right, or the progressive thought ascribes evil to skin color or some other characteristic, to become mainstream.

One can do all the reading he wants. Until the view has had to be defended, however, he may just have a collection of thoughts and ideas with no connective tissue, cobbled together in a one-man university/seminary where a “major issue” in that academic world is a rabbit hole.

And, after all that, there will still be someone will just read 6 sentences of what you say and assume the rest regardless. They need to keep up with you, you do not need to lower yourself to them.

3. Just because history has one shining element of success that those who haven’t read a book since high school know about does not mean the act itself is in the same vein. When discussing the no-stakes uselessness of today’s protests and activism, one is likely to hear something about  truly successful protest movements like the Civil Rights movement and….the Civil Rights movement, and hope that the perpetual afterglow from that success shines upon protests of every sort and tactic even now. It’s the “if you’re against X, you must also be against Y” gaslight, but with only one frame of reference. 

This is not saying “don’t protest”, but that there should be at least two caveats in this act. The first is an understanding that it is highly unlikely to work, given they are so common and rarely have anything useful to say. The second is that if it turns violent or disruptive -and- has nothing new or useful to say it damages not only the cause but the effectiveness of protesting itself. Bluntly, however, one could argue at this point the effectiveness is long gone. (See “Does the Size of a Protest Matter” New York Times, 2017, and “Protesting Does Not Achieve Anything” Lotus Eaters October 2021).

Part of the problem is that most have now been convinced that the internet is the real world. While this criticism does discount what happens on the internet (real people are slandered, harassed, doxed, etc.) the fact that this virtual realm is where the real-world protests are louder and appear broader than they are, and are also omnipresent, basically dooms the protest concept from the start. The dividing line between those in power and the people, especially at the federal level, is well defined at this point, and the people have done it to themselves. Specifically those who appointed themselves spokespeople.

4. It is amazing how much leftist argument hinges on dragging the middle to the edge and attacking that point, whatever drags the person to “racist” or “bootlicker” or “bloodthirsty” territory so the leftist doesn’t have to contend with the argument in front of them. Those who say the modern kind of protest is useless, destructive and counter-productive “would be against the Civil Rights movement too” because that too is a protest movement. No, riots with nothing useful to say are both violent and empty.

Those with self-defense standards that go beyond the insane line of “allowing the defender one bullet” and “only if the attacker shoots first”, who consider the psychological elements of a law enforcement job want them to have “carte blanche” in terms of use of force. No, we’re just considerably more likely to understand the human element of the job than you. Frankly, it’s not hard to improve on nothing. Much of leftist argument now is trying to avoid saying “I want these people killed” but setting the standard for defense so high that such is the natural result and accusing those who disagree of having this desire first.

There needs to be a new rule when debating progressives, at a certain point, the only thing left to do is to realize that they’re never going to say out-right that they don’t believe in self-defense. They will say they -do-, “it’s just that”, the standard for lethal use of force is so high as to be completely useless. This is very in line with the standard “I support the Second Amendment, but” and “I support free speech, but” carving out specific caveats to slide in room for further restrictions later (seriously, ask a progressive to draw a line on restrictions they will not cross and watch the contortions). It is apparent that their philosophy is one of endless restrictions for others, and assumes those others are too stupid to realize the person they “support” a basic American right in such a way that their support is indistinguishable from contempt, because it not support but it -is- contempt.

The slippery slope is not a fallacy, it’s a trend. More importantly, the creation of this trend is deliberate. In other words, gaslighting is the foundation of the progressive speech and firearm arguments. If you’ve ever lived with a gaslighter, you know the line is never permanent. In fact, that very phrase indicates two things; one, you have given the abuser power over you in what you don’t realize is a misplaced sense of trust, trying to make happy someone who is never happy. Two, you will never know what the standard truly is. You will hopefully come to find it as degrading trying to pursue their standard. The beginning of a better, calmer head-space then, is to reject it completely.

I’ve had a theory for a while that, for the hyper-online and political, Day Zero is the day of their electoral defeat so they are not burdened by the consequences and theoretical moral weight of their victory. For the “No Kings” crowd, this is also true. As has been noted by many on the right, the No Kings movement has at least two ideological flaws that it either doesn’t care about or doesn’t know about. Both of which should sap the protest of its moral weight, but thank the God they don’t believe in that politics is morally nihilistic.

First, I am not a fan of Trump and have criticized him and his fans a lot, especially recently. I put this blood on the doorframe because it is the knee-jerk reaction of the progressive to read counter-arguments to their doctrine, stop reading, and begin, whether in a comment or DM, with a rehearsed, indignant elevator pitch. Knowing that if one is determined to be offended there’s nothing I can do, I’ve learned to leave a mod to the programming in the opening of every political thought since at least February. Whether one installs it is up to them, but it will greatly enhance the experience

Continue reading Two flaws in the No King’s clothes. →

“Q: Which is the ninth commandment
A: The ninth commandment is, thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”
Q : What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
A (in part): The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbour, as well as our own” – The Westminster Larger Catechism, Questions 143 and 144

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience” C.S. Lewis

Those who are determined to be “offended” will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt” – Christopher Hitchens

Continue reading On Civility →

One of the hallmarks of liberalism is to approach a long-standing tradition as a friend. Paying homage to the tradition’s enduring character and in some cases, the depth of the ideas that undergird it. The liberal then suggests, because of its long-lasting nature, this traditional belief has elements from its time which need to be reworded, or perhaps new ideas should be added onto the existing framework. Suddenly, the definition of words are altered and the tradition is chipped away at, until it is replaced entirely or kept around in a humiliating, subservient position. The liberal reveals himself to be a pure deconstructionist. He is incapable of building something better than what he destroyed, but is convinced what he did needed to take place and that it is more important that he was sincere and well-intentioned in his work regardless. This is evident in the political realm with the changing definition of terms like “racism,” or the fluid definition of “male” and “female.” Liberalism unmoors its victims from the traditions and beliefs that founded and sustained a successful culture under the guise that what is “new” is by definition better because what is “old” is outdated.

Continue reading The Confusion of the Confession of 1963 →

1) You ever wonder how many people on the opposite side of your political opinions have actually read books -from- your side?

Statistically (and in my experience over the last 3 years), if you’re progressive , the answer to the question “have you read the sharpest minds that disagree with you” is essentially, “what’s reading”, “why would I read racists” or a laugh react on Facebook with no elaboration; a less-than-ideal response to what is basically asking whether or not you live in a bubble. ^[1]

And, as BlueSky indicates, “bubble” is not an insult, but rather, to hear the left say it, it’s a pejorative used by conservatives who are jealous of not being let into this college-educated, and yet very poorly-read and easily-offended club. ^[2]

Conversely, the conservatives can be guilty of over-reading, if they read much at all. It is often books from popular authors on their side while letting Fox or Daily Wire handle what the other side believes. Which is a mistake. The primary texts of Critical Race Theory, for example, are far worse than any caricature the Fox News Channel is capable of. FNC’s view of DEI is relatively accurate, but it’s just enough to give viewers a superiority complex without being able to articulate why CRT/DEI is truly evil. There is enough horror in the Communist Manifesto, Stamped, CRT: Key Writings that Formed the Movement, and a particularly awful book from 2019 called “The Case Against Free Speech” to work with, that Fox does progressivism a service by not articulating what it really is all about.

Continue reading Year-end Political thoughts →

I legitimately do not understand the pro-choice argument. From a moral perspective, generally, but specifically when a kid is or is not alive/human.

If the argument is “it can’t survive on its own in the womb”, that’s particularly absurd. It can’t survive outside the womb, either. Location does not determine survivability or humanity. Leave a 2-year-old to fend for themselves. He’ll be dead in a day or two.

Continue reading On Abortion →

So, in the aftermath of the Georgia shooting, we find that the shooter:

Was 14 (so having a gun was already a problem)
Stopped shooting when he was engaged by a resource officer

The unknown is doing a lot of heavy lifting for the gun control argument in this matter. It is not known how the kid got the weapon, but the logical assumption is that he stole it from his parents. This has not been confirmed. What -has- been confirmed however is that he stopped after he was shot at, that other forms of “physical security” like locks and cameras do not actually deal with the threat and “run, hide, fight” doesn’t do so either.

But of course, those of us who don’t need a gun ban to appear to be a panacea know how this works.

Continue reading 1K on the Georgia Shooter →

Point ¼: How has the idea of a benevolent government survived the lockdown era? If we’re being charitable, one might ask if these people did not mind or, worse yet, enjoyed being talked to like children. If we’re not being charitable, and you can probably tell we’re not, something was intoxicating about being unilaterally correct. Everyone who disagreed with you was cruel and selfish, as determined by “The Science” ® and “The Experts” ™. You were on “the Right Side of History”.

Until it was apparent, even to you, that you really, really weren’t and “I told you so” didn’t had stopped being sufficent about six months prior to this revelation.

Point ½: How does the idea that people are inherently good survive even essential examination? If this were true, children would behave well by default. “Inherent good” does not manifest at a certain age, depending on the culture. It is “inherent”; it is -always- there. If it’s a matter of teaching what that good is, then it is by definition not inherent; it is taught.

Point 3/4: To say that people are -not- inherently good is not to say they are entirely irredeemable, just that their minds and hearts are generally slanted towards themselves and what is best for their comfort and advancement.

All of this points to the idea that progress is unidirectional and unstoppable, especially now that religion has lost its political and cultural sway. Mankind is unfettered in its journey toward utopia.

So where is it?

Continue reading Wrong think →