“There is no life without dialogue. And across most of the world, dialogue is today replaced by polemic. The twentieth century is the century of polemic and insult. Between nations and individuals, and even at the level of formerly disinterested disciplines, polemic holds the place which was traditionally held by considered dialogue. Day and night thousands of voices, each pursuing from its own corner a noisy monologue, unleash on people a torrent of mystifying words, attacks, defenses, passions. But what is the mechanism of polemic? It consists in viewing the opponent as an enemy, consequently simplifying him and refusing to see him. When I insult a person, I no longer know the color of his gaze, nor if he sometimes smiles and how. Grown three-quarters blind thanks to polemic, we no longer live among men but in a world of shapes.”
There was a post 7,8 weeks ago - sort of personal epistemology guidance; I recall (correctly?) the warning - "don't become what you click" -(but not much else) - I think we're "there" again - and that might a good candidate for a sticky post.
just finished reading Camus' "The Plague".....powerfully written.
My take: there's nothing new under the sun. The delivery mechanisms for old tropes is always morphing to take advantage of new subjects and target audiences. Like viral infections. COVID a la 2020 was/is nothing new. Just a new "presentation opportunity".
"Dialogue" with Bolsheviks can be hazardous to your health. I prefer the 1775 method, Why? because we have diddled away our time and efforts on Dialogue with the Devil.
Evil Exists, politically it is Tyranny, in any form, obedience without question or rationality.
Can you name the "Isms'? Communism, Socialism and Islam coupled with Expansionism.
The isms I think of are racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, classism. These are what are invoked any time anyone of us disagrees with the narrative and seeks good conversation.
All of those are Communist. That's what this whole article was about. "Good Conversation" with Idiots is idiotic, imo. Forget waking up the sheeples, Arouse the Lions.
The Alinskyites have used ridicule so often that there is no chance for the kind of meaningful debate which should exist when discussing ideas of importance. The kind of debate about ideas and principles that we like to have here on Substack only exists with people who oppose the Alinskyites and their whole twisted agenda. We are demonstrably capable of having this type of debate, as evidenced by the proliferation of like-minded blogs on Substack.
We who oppose the Alinskyites are aching for the serious discussion of serious ideas, but we cannot have that in any meaningful sense with them, the adherents of The Narrative, whether we are talking about Covidianism, economics, labor issues, global warming, the role of government, or anything else. Their ideas, quite simply, are so bad that they would never survive the metaphoric trial by combat in the battleground of ideas they would have to endure in a serious debate.
The Narrative has grown into the reality-displacing fantasy believed in by millions, perhaps billions, in that environment, one that is devoid of any lasting connection to objective reality. No part of The Narrative stand up to any kind of serious inquiry, and its devotees will work to ensure that it never has to.
That puts us in the position of having little other choice than to employ ridicule ourselves, as our host has pointed out is being done with memes to great effect. The narrative needs to be ridiculed, because it is ridiculous.
Exposing them to the same kind of ridicule they have long weaponized against us puts them at a serious disadvantage. Their view of reality is such fertile ground for ridicule that it's almost too easy. It's a whole lot more difficult to ridicule objective reality, which is the position in which they now find themselves. They can't win in a serious debate, and they can't win in a battle of memes when their side lends itself to ridicule so well.
In engaging them at their own level, we reintroduce the idea that in a battle between two opposing ideas, the one that has objective reality on their side has an advantage that should, over time, make them the winners. The Alinskyite use of ridicule only works for the reality-impaired side if their opposition (us) continues to employ only conventional debate in response.
In the twisted pseudo-reality the Alinskyite set has created, those of us who still adhere to objective reality are the radicals now.
>>>>in the real world, you never really know what’s on the trolley tracks. the risk and the cost are perception. and perception is often inaccurate. perception is often manipulated. and this is done with malice aforethought.
This entire article was very good. Some fraction of people really do want to play god. Because of their own warped sense of self, they feel better about themselves by controlling others.
This reminds me of that point in the movie Joe vs. the Volcano when Meg Ryan's character finally learns that "Joe" was going to jump into a volcano because he had a "brain cloud." She asked "You didn't get a second opinion for something called a brain cloud?"
The problem with the second opinion now is if the CDC approved brain cloud diagnoses the second opinion would say ‘science has clearly shown that many have brain clouds. Research has been done and jumping into a volcano is a safe and effective cure’. ‘But will I still have a brain cloud?’ ‘Yes. But it will be a mild one.’ ‘What about the lava?’ ‘Be very careful what you’re reading on social media these days. It is true a very tiny number of people have been burned to a crisp instantly when jumping into a volcano. But most just get singed slightly. A light singe that goes away after a few days.’ ‘Thanks Doc. I guess I’ll jump into the volcano.’
I was thinking about that The thing is, they don't have to control all the doctors, they just have to continue with the messaging. The rest takes care of itself. They knew Joe wouldn't go for a second opinion because he already believed something was wrong with him. What was wrong was he was plagued by fear and anxiety. Ironically, once he found out he was right via the brain cloud diagnosis, he was able to move on and gain momentum in his life. He had a goal and mission. His life was going to mean something, even if it killed him.
Imagine what would happen if we told those who were afflicted with fear and anxiety that they all had an incubated form of Covid, that it would continue to gestate inside them and somewhere in the next two years, they would asymptomatically eventually have massive organ failure. What they feared had come to pass, they have Covid, and the worst was on the horizon.
Some would lock themselves away in desperation, but others would be like Joe...and with nothing to lose would seek to make their lives mean something, even if that something was predicated on a lie.
Some may counter "But such a lie would be cruel and unusual." I agree. It is cruel to tell people the lie that they have or could easily catch a terminal disease where the cure is an experimental untested treatment. Where treatments that have been around for many years for other ailments were banned from use for this one because it interferes with the production and dispersal of the experimental treatment.
Conversely, there are many more people who can't help but lie themselves down on the tracks and await some godlike person to come along and "rescue" them from their self-imposed victimization.
I noted that quote too. FINALLY I find someone else who would not pull the lever. I used to teach this in an "ethics/critical thinking" class to college first-years, and it was always me and one lone kid that wouldn't. I always likened my reaction as similar to the one I have about that fence, from Chesterton: “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up.”
It's not that they want to play god, really. Oh, they might want to; but the more essential urge is that they feel an obligation to play god. It isn't a choice that they can make really; they are born to it. They are the Elite, the Anointed. This is their destiny, and now is their moment.
Have you read Julius Reuchel’s essay “Bystander at the Switch”? It covers the trolley problem beautifully. His one graphic “Illusion versus Reality” in particular.
"the seen vs the unseen" immediately calls to my mind henry hazlitt's economics in one lesson, which of course is based on bastiat's essay. from wikipedia:
The "One Lesson" is stated in Part One of the book: "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."[2] Part Two consists of twenty-four chapters, each demonstrating the lesson by tracing the effects of one common economic belief, and exposing common economic belief as a series of fallacies.
I agree with the sentiment but there is an important correction… ‘ We invented universal human rights…’
No we didn’t. They exist, and always have existed, naturally - like gravity. We just discovered them, like we discovered gravity.
This is why they are in nobody’s gift. They exist in each of us by nature of our existence. Nobody can take these Rights away, although they certainly can stop us enjoying them.
In essence this is the difference between Common Law - which is discovered - and Code Law or Legislation which is invented. Under Common Law, everything is legal unless the Law says otherwise. Under Code/Legislated Law nothing is legal unless the Law says it is.
Some say that Legislation should not be called Law as it confuses provenance, integrity and legitimacy. A question of brand identity, as one might say. Not all colas are Coke.
Code Law is a much more restrictive and open to abuse and arbitrary judgement. It gives Government greater control. In a Common Law society, legislation is only permitted if it keeps to the letter or spirit of the Common Law - that is the sole function of Parliament/Congress to make sure it does, thereby protecting the citizen from the State.
Except - Parliament/Congress have joined the tyrant - that is no longer the case and legislation is designed to undermine Common Law or override it altogether and that violates this principle:-
“It forbids government from imposing a hierarchy of rights on their citizens. It forbids government from sacrificing some people for the benefit of others. It forbids government from knowingly imposing harm on some individuals in order to serve an alleged greater good”.
And that is exactly what legislatures spend the whole time doing.
Spectacular. It is why the American Revolution was truly revolutionary: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Well it does and doesn't. Let's not conflate it with false analogies... the article is full of facts and the author states (correctly) what a disaster the lockdown/vaccine policy has been.
BUT what if it hadn't been a disaster?
What if we'd faced a Covid that the average age of the dead wasn't 82, but rather was 8.2? Would we react the same way then? Wanna pull the lever yet?
What if these kids were dropping like flies and a vaccine came out that really was 95% effective and did stop transmission in it's wake? Wanna pull the lever yet?
No? Then, yes if the above conditions were true, I'd kill you and pull the lever. My children and their classmates lives are at stake.
If we're going to use thought experiments, let's use them accurately.
so if i can stop the gods from being angry and wiping out the town by throwing you into the volcano, that's the way to go as long as it saves 2 or more people?
also note that you're arguing from false premise. if the disease were that obviously deadly and any of the mitigations actually worked, why do you presume people would need to be compelled to adopt them instead of doing so of their own volition and in their own interest?
you're framing a slanted question that begs the reality.
Indeed, 'our' side (if I may so presumptuous) never said to do nothing at all. We simply said that totally voluntary measures would be enough to 'flatten the curve' and ensure hospitals weren't overrun. Places like North Dakota that never had lockdowns or mask mandates prove it.
Agree you hit a nail on the head with the " if it was that deadly" scenario. I would expect different behaviour too. That's my point, we didn't have a real trolly dilemma.
But why jump to ANOTHER false analogy yourself of volcano gods?
Yes, although assuming we have free-will (and it's not all pre-determined a la David Hume's billiard balls) we have to have an attempt at thinking policies through, and also having the humility to re-consider them if they prove to be clearly wrong like in the fixed-rents example many give.
If you believe in chaotic variance then the latter is even more important I reckon. Myself I think it's more Pythagorean repeating vibrations layers over layers, and we're probably on the cusp with machine-learning of being able to code past some of the seeming chaos. Hopefully it'll feel more like finding fractals within the rainbow than just unweaving the rainbow.
Yes, every technology from fire onwards can be used for good and bad. AI is likely very significant. Half the time I feel like going full smash-the-mechanical-loom luddite, and the other half I see genuine hope and progress in the area.
You’re arguing angels on the head of a pin arguments. Your analogy is as unreasonable as the trolley question. For one thing if the average age was 8.2 the virus would not be a Corona virus. And if people were dropping like flies NO ONE would have to be coerced into social distancing.
I would derail the trolley! Okay, there were thirty people on the trolley, all of whom died. But gosh darn it, I stopped the trolley. (Paraphrasing every public health officer over the last two years...)
This is my problem with the academic sphere of philosophy in general. In principle, I understand the need to eliminate extraneous variables to try to explore a fundamental concept- you can "but what about" anything to death if you don't stipulate to any conditions in a thought exercise.
But it never, ever ends up creating practical value. Of COURSE in real life the better thing is to find the solution where no one gets run over or put on the tracks in the first place.
Yup. They're exercises with limited use, but even here we can at least see different thoughts emerge... Kinda like how your tribe is going to behave once you've led it out the dessert.
In your counter situation, the same logic is maintained. Authorities would suggest and the wise would obey. The unwise might perish in greater numbers, their choice.
Now if it was obvious I was an immediate threat to your child and yourself, you are allowed to kill me. But shooting up the neighborhood because some person in that area might be a threat to you and kiddies would not be lawful ordinarily - except in crazy-town lock-down.
Hmmm, yes agree with first scenario mainly. The unwise fraction would likely be vanishingly small this time. The bigger problem would have been those supermarket scenarios... the staff really would no-show and the fights in the aisles would be hyper-violent and I expect martial law would be important for any order. Military distribution of food etc.
If there was a year delay to this hypothetical child-saving vax, the lockdowns would be the thing policed harder. I read evidence they were useless as implemented, but the Chinese-style weld people into their apartments and reduce interactions to 2 or less per day seemed to flatten the curve (I accept we're still in datageddon but there seems some logic in that policy). So if in that scenario some infected zealous family felt they were going to waltz down your street coughing and spitting to prove their point, and this would likely lead to several more kids dying in your vicinity, what do you do?
The Chinese example is awful. Isolation in apartment block is impossible as they have discovered.
The best we can ever do is try to confine, quarantine the infected and allow the world to go about their business. That's what public health always did in the past with more or less success. Force has been used but that was rare.
Once something becomes really deadly, it stops circulating. I gather we don't really know how deadly vs spread relate. Ebola can't really get going because it's hosts perish rapidly. Shortly after exposure they develop symptoms. Now the worse would be a deadly virus with a longer incubation time but enough replication to spread. That is what was feared most about SARs-CoV-2. Turns out to be at best a few days for that.
I’m not 100% convinced of what you meant to say but as I read this I totally disagree. People often do terrible things unthinkingly. They seemingly are unaware of the consequences of their actions. But if they had thought for one minute those consequences would easily have been foreseeable. That’s why we have different degrees of murder. But they’re all murder. And you go to jail for all of them.
Socialist policies are perfect examples of this. Rents are too high? Restrict rental rates. Twenty years later there are no rentals. Gee! No one could have anticipated that! In Canada there is an elderly politician fighting the mandates saying they are against the Charter of Rights. He was one of the writers of the Charter. NO! They are fully in line with the Charter. Which gives governments tons of loopholes to work around it. Enshrined in an unchangeable document. At the time of its writing I was young and naive and I was outraged. As were many others. But we were a tiny minority. I said at the time ‘as soon as we have elected a tyrant our rights vanish’. It took 40 years, but it happened.
All your examples- which are good ones- are examples of people pulling a lever as opposed to not doing anything to disrupt a "natural" pre-existing system.
I'm reminded of the adage "don't tear down a fence until you find out exactly why it was there in the first place."
I agree that intent may play a role in how we decide to morally evaluate behavior, but I argue that it is CHOOSING TO ACT to interfere or change a state makes you truly culpable when the consequences results in harm- no matter what your intentions were.
totally agree. one time i complained to a co-worker about how destructive to birds the wind turbines are, and she said, "well there won't be any birds at all if we don't stop climate change." Hard to argue with that, at least not with someone you have to work with everyday. So to save the sparrows of the future we have to kill all the eagles today? and then of course it will be, "whoops! turns out we didn't need those wind turbines after all!"
But be smart because you can only fit so much in the boat and we have to get out of here really quickly before the Church shows up with troops, and the water gets really churny on the way back to Denmark.
I’m terrible at debating. What would be a one sentence rebuttal? I mentioned nuclear but she scared of “the waste.” The best I could think of was “why are we trying to control the whole planet?”
lol -- i wish i was the kinda person who could say those things! one thing I miss about everyone working together at an "office" was hearing other people say the things I wish I could say. Now they've sent all of us home to "telework" and it's boring as hell.
I applaud your optimism and share it. Things are bad but we have the tools and the capability to replace and rebuild that which has been infected and turned against us. Meanwhile, every day more people on the margins grow sick of the mess created by this cult.
Another thought experiment, to really drive things home. Assume the world is overpopulated, and that the ecological strain this creates dooms the human species to extinction. The problem can be solved by eliminating 99% of the population. Doing so will result in humanity existing more or less in perpetuity. The extermination of billions of actually existing, flesh and blood humans is then justified by the lives of hundreds of billions of hypothetical future humans.
Point being, the cult's mindset does not require those 5 people on the trolley to even exist. In fact, there's a strong psychological pressure to simply invent them. Oh, we killed more people than we saved, in the real world? No problem, we'll just imagine more people into existence, and count them as among the saved - see, we're the good guys again!
yes, the malthusian cult simply will not die. it feels like some sort of vindication of campbells ideas of universal myths to serve unconscious needs.
it's just the eden story, over and over. once there was a garden and then man went and wrecked it and now we're screwed and must find some way back in.
they never contemplate how AWFUL a world with 99% fewer humans would be. science would stop and recede. so would services, amenities, culture, art, food, and 3,000 other things. who would develop new drugs and surgeries?
they imagine the world of today but with no crowds, but that is NOT what would happen. the technological and societal collapse would be savage.
life would become, once more, nasty, brutish, and short.
Impossible. It would go exactly as modeled/theorized, and if it doesn't, that just means the stupid peasants wanting their freedumbs didn't comply hard enough.
I have taken the time to read WEF reports. They think electricity comes from a light switch and water comes from the tap. They do not understand what they are doing.
Yep. The fantasy of a high-tech robot society with no people is just that. A large population is necessary to maintain the specialization if labor that enables a technological society to be maintained.
We could probably lose some fraction of the population without catastrophic technological regress; e.g. the Black Death wiped out 1/3 of Europe and it didn't go back to the Bronze Age. But there are real limits and the Georgia Guidestones prescription of 500 million is under that limit.
That's just it. The West has had this minor miracle for so many consecutive generations of relatively limited government, that they don't see it as a miracle anymore. They (we) take it for granted.
We saw this at the time of the founding, as well. The OG founders held pretty well to the Constitution, but once they were dead, the new guys REALLY started trying to work their way around it.
Ah the return to the great days of 1890 where hauling water was a daily chore. And we had to worry about our little garden growing well. Hours devoted to daily life kept us from inventing an iPhone. The ability to create and corral energy caused climate to be forever ruined by we nasty humans. And the answer is 1890?
Bingo. The Trolley Problem is actually so simplified to make its point that it becomes somewhat unhelpful. In reality, unless you possess a rare degree of reliable inside knowledge, you are most often taking someone else's word for it that there even *are* five people on the current track.
This is why loss of trust is such an issue no matter how much the television downplays it.
I saw a great sketch of this years ago where, waaaay down the line with one person on it, there's a veritable stack of people tied to the tracks- and no switch nearby.
I think you're right with this observation, "i fear the reality is actually even more chilling: they are sure that they are moral"
It reminds me of the C.S. Lewis quote, “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.”
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, these would be do-gooders have to utilize morally bankrupt politicians and bureaucracies to institute their tyranny, giving those that would fight against them a foe that at least has the potential to be persuaded based on their own self interest at least.
I didn't really understand why Biden was the Democratic nominee. It seemed there were better choices for the party that would stand a better shot at defeating Trump. A few might have actually won without cheating.
By putting in Biden they can do anything they want with no individual blame. President Grandpa takes all the blame.
Joe and Kamala and Nancy and the rest are puppets of the Man Behind The Curtain - The problem is a structural one which cannot be resolved by elections or party politics, it is the existence of a governmental structure which exerts the only real power in United States governance. The loud contest seen in Congress, as typified by the January 6th “hearings” is little more than a distraction, as are the semi-annual and quadrennial electoral contests, in which half of the American people are pitted against the other half, to give their support to one side or the other of a structure which makes no real policy, and which enforces none - they act merely as mouthpieces for the Administrative State and its Military-Industrial-National Security Complex and its plans and intentions. Similarly, the Supreme Court exercises no real power over this State. Political divisions, therefore, are nothing but a very useful tool to distract attention from the real Man Behind The Curtain - besides being a means for massive self-enrichment for the players on that stage, much as professional athletes and entertainers get millions for their work in keeping the public’s attention away from the realities of this situation.
This Administrative State exists without any Constitutional basis, and has, since its inception. It has subverted Constitutional process since then, and now strives to overtly overthrow Constitutional governance. It is the living embodiment of sedition, and it itself must be overthrown and abolished at all levels. https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/the-enemy-within-the-gates-the-corruption
Actually her selection by the real person behind the curtain was because she is willing to do most anything to rise, thus even easier to control. They had no idea that she actually had no ability to even understand her lines. AOC would have been a better choice - somewhat well controlled and greater wit at playing her lines.
In both selection cases, the patsy turned out not to behave. Joe in a petulant fit ordered the Afghanistan withdrawal, a disaster all of his singular decision. Turns out he often breaks his controls.
Time for the quarterly reminder of the C.S. Lewis quote about tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of the citizen.
Also from a more modern work (ironically from a franchise currently in its woke death throes):
"Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel."
For those of us who don't immediately get the reference, is that Start Trek or Thanos of the MCU (Marvel Comics Universe)?
In the Old Testament of the Bible, God didn't want to ordain a king. The Israelites whined and complained that they wanted a king like every other people. God picked Saul and warned them having a king was a bad idea that they would come to regret. Paraphrasing, but that's the general gist. Book of First Samuel, chapters 8-12.
The trolley dilemna is a great analogy to communism. It needs a second frame of what happens after the switch is pulled. The individual on the track dies, the 5 others on the track die, the guy pulling the switch dies and everyone on the train dies in a massive fiery derailment.
I suspect this thought that you've written is what had me think perhaps I could leave the switch and jump in front of the trolley. Then perhaps my mushed self would stop it, perhaps not, but at least I didn't kill anyone, I tried my best, and I'm onwards to a better place instead of analyzing it still...
How 'bout jumping on the trolley and hitting the brakes? You might fail and die, or get maimed; but you were trying the only alternative that seemed likely to avert bloodshed.
The key is ignoring leaders that give us only these 2 terrible options. Unfortunately there are millions of useful idiots that will happily throw the switch and feel virtuous while posting it to social media.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may 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. . . . This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
‘… those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will;…’
Alas that describes our rulers and those in the activist industry fighting all ills and woes inflicted on Mother Earth and favoured groups by hateful Mankind, who must be redeemed in his own blood and destruction.
Upon recent travel, I spoke candidly and kindly with strangers who were not aware of the things I am. I saw extreme discomfort to hear the things I had to say. I think it's important to keep talking and let people process things. You need not convince them during a particular conversation, but only provide information and a different perspective. If we do this collectively and respectively through our close and casual communications with others, I think we can turn this around. People will not continue to do whatever once they are able to piece it all together. Even if they do, well, they will live with the consequences. Our effort is to undo the censoring. It is worth wrecking whatever relationships we may have though because without life or quality of life there really can't be a good relationship; it is merely a facade.
It begins by planting seeds of doubt in their minds. Let them come to a conclusion on their own and that conclusiont will be sometime down the road. We just have to raise the ideas into their consciousness. It is similar to when you buy a new car and then you notice everybody else is driving the same type of car. Before you bought the car you wouldn't have noticed how many of that type of car there were on the streets
I've begun, anytime someone tells me of a strange or sudden illness or death, I ask, did they get the covid shot (with a look of terrible and honest concern, no snark.) This shocks a lot of people and might even make them mad, but I want people to start to connect these dots and see what's right before their eyes.
And if they answer "I don't know" I ask whether the person was being asked to or were mandated by work or school. I also ask which one(s) was/were taken, how long ago, and frequency. Even though the answer might still be I don't know, I explain why I ask the questions. These unanswered questions will sit with a person until they start asking more questions of their own. Like you said, even just asking the question without any explanation at all should set gears turning. Other questions like, are they investigating the death is another one which is a very reasonable question to ask if the death is either unexpected or unexplained. This is what a normal.person would ask under normal circumstances. Even a child would ask this question. If this question is not being asked, question why. By not following up with normal questions, we are saying justice no longer matters and are teaching our kids wrong, even hurting them psychologically.
Great article. I’m with you on tearing down the bureaucracy wholesale. I also think we need a program of radical self-reliance. We have been caught up in trading independence for comfort. We willingly attached ourselves to centralized grids which ended up controlling us. We need new technologies that emphasize individual freedom, utilize only local resources, and human-scale manufacturing processes. If the grid is only valuable when individuals *choose* to inject some of their own resources into it, the maintainers of the grid aren’t in control anymore. The new republic should measure every proposal based on whether it increases individual independence or not.
I like the use of the trolley problem. Perception and information are so easily manipulated. Emotions can pull someone around and get them to sacrifice for unnumbered unnecessary goals. Rile someone up in hatred allows one to get the angry person to do anything.
The next thing boys are off to fight in a war that benefits oligarchs and allows the oligarchs more money and power.
That's exactly right. They always start their frame at some random middle nowhere spot instead of the beginning. Just start the frame on train tracks in the middle of the desert. But who tied these people to the train tracks? And who transported them here? Find these people and you will find the flow of money.
No "who" but "W.H.O.", for one, along with the CCP's bioweapons lab in Wuhan, funding from Fauci and the NIH, along with Peter Daszak and his dark money-funded EcoHealth Alliance who drove the gain of function research.
Just don't call it gain of function research. And don't call this a recession because we've redefined the word.
In Christianity, this a version of our core beliefs and doctrine: Lucifer (satan) wanted (wants) to enslave us all to save us. Christ and God would give us freedom to progress on our own (and with his help if we so choose). Satan thought (and thinks) he was (is) the good guy, and should have been our savior. It’s a story as old as time..
“There is no life without dialogue. And across most of the world, dialogue is today replaced by polemic. The twentieth century is the century of polemic and insult. Between nations and individuals, and even at the level of formerly disinterested disciplines, polemic holds the place which was traditionally held by considered dialogue. Day and night thousands of voices, each pursuing from its own corner a noisy monologue, unleash on people a torrent of mystifying words, attacks, defenses, passions. But what is the mechanism of polemic? It consists in viewing the opponent as an enemy, consequently simplifying him and refusing to see him. When I insult a person, I no longer know the color of his gaze, nor if he sometimes smiles and how. Grown three-quarters blind thanks to polemic, we no longer live among men but in a world of shapes.”
—Albert Camus, “Witness for Freedom”
seems quaint now, doesn't it?
There was a post 7,8 weeks ago - sort of personal epistemology guidance; I recall (correctly?) the warning - "don't become what you click" -(but not much else) - I think we're "there" again - and that might a good candidate for a sticky post.
I click, there fore I am.
‘You are what you click’.
“As I’ve always said ‘ergo sum proctor click’”. Leave them wondering.
Sadly so.
So much is packed into that quote. Another way to look at it is this:
And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never shared
And no one dared disturb the sound of silence
"The Sound of Silence" ~Simon and Garfunkel
👍👍
Perfect.
just finished reading Camus' "The Plague".....powerfully written.
My take: there's nothing new under the sun. The delivery mechanisms for old tropes is always morphing to take advantage of new subjects and target audiences. Like viral infections. COVID a la 2020 was/is nothing new. Just a new "presentation opportunity".
Solomon was a pretty prescient dude, eh?
Wise guy!
Please educate me on this reference.
Thank you for this quote--and thanks to el gato malo for the piece---the collective clarity herein is a sounding.
"Dialogue" with Bolsheviks can be hazardous to your health. I prefer the 1775 method, Why? because we have diddled away our time and efforts on Dialogue with the Devil.
Evil Exists, politically it is Tyranny, in any form, obedience without question or rationality.
Can you name the "Isms'? Communism, Socialism and Islam coupled with Expansionism.
The isms I think of are racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, classism. These are what are invoked any time anyone of us disagrees with the narrative and seeks good conversation.
All of those are Communist. That's what this whole article was about. "Good Conversation" with Idiots is idiotic, imo. Forget waking up the sheeples, Arouse the Lions.
“The twentieth century is the century of polemic and insult.”
That’s Alinsky’s Rule Five which is a favorite of the useful idiots because “ridicule” is easy.
Easy and effective... but that cuts both ways.
The Alinskyites have used ridicule so often that there is no chance for the kind of meaningful debate which should exist when discussing ideas of importance. The kind of debate about ideas and principles that we like to have here on Substack only exists with people who oppose the Alinskyites and their whole twisted agenda. We are demonstrably capable of having this type of debate, as evidenced by the proliferation of like-minded blogs on Substack.
We who oppose the Alinskyites are aching for the serious discussion of serious ideas, but we cannot have that in any meaningful sense with them, the adherents of The Narrative, whether we are talking about Covidianism, economics, labor issues, global warming, the role of government, or anything else. Their ideas, quite simply, are so bad that they would never survive the metaphoric trial by combat in the battleground of ideas they would have to endure in a serious debate.
The Narrative has grown into the reality-displacing fantasy believed in by millions, perhaps billions, in that environment, one that is devoid of any lasting connection to objective reality. No part of The Narrative stand up to any kind of serious inquiry, and its devotees will work to ensure that it never has to.
That puts us in the position of having little other choice than to employ ridicule ourselves, as our host has pointed out is being done with memes to great effect. The narrative needs to be ridiculed, because it is ridiculous.
Exposing them to the same kind of ridicule they have long weaponized against us puts them at a serious disadvantage. Their view of reality is such fertile ground for ridicule that it's almost too easy. It's a whole lot more difficult to ridicule objective reality, which is the position in which they now find themselves. They can't win in a serious debate, and they can't win in a battle of memes when their side lends itself to ridicule so well.
In engaging them at their own level, we reintroduce the idea that in a battle between two opposing ideas, the one that has objective reality on their side has an advantage that should, over time, make them the winners. The Alinskyite use of ridicule only works for the reality-impaired side if their opposition (us) continues to employ only conventional debate in response.
In the twisted pseudo-reality the Alinskyite set has created, those of us who still adhere to objective reality are the radicals now.
polemic
noun
-A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine.
-A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation
>>>>in the real world, you never really know what’s on the trolley tracks. the risk and the cost are perception. and perception is often inaccurate. perception is often manipulated. and this is done with malice aforethought.
This entire article was very good. Some fraction of people really do want to play god. Because of their own warped sense of self, they feel better about themselves by controlling others.
This reminds me of that point in the movie Joe vs. the Volcano when Meg Ryan's character finally learns that "Joe" was going to jump into a volcano because he had a "brain cloud." She asked "You didn't get a second opinion for something called a brain cloud?"
The problem with the second opinion now is if the CDC approved brain cloud diagnoses the second opinion would say ‘science has clearly shown that many have brain clouds. Research has been done and jumping into a volcano is a safe and effective cure’. ‘But will I still have a brain cloud?’ ‘Yes. But it will be a mild one.’ ‘What about the lava?’ ‘Be very careful what you’re reading on social media these days. It is true a very tiny number of people have been burned to a crisp instantly when jumping into a volcano. But most just get singed slightly. A light singe that goes away after a few days.’ ‘Thanks Doc. I guess I’ll jump into the volcano.’
I was thinking about that The thing is, they don't have to control all the doctors, they just have to continue with the messaging. The rest takes care of itself. They knew Joe wouldn't go for a second opinion because he already believed something was wrong with him. What was wrong was he was plagued by fear and anxiety. Ironically, once he found out he was right via the brain cloud diagnosis, he was able to move on and gain momentum in his life. He had a goal and mission. His life was going to mean something, even if it killed him.
Imagine what would happen if we told those who were afflicted with fear and anxiety that they all had an incubated form of Covid, that it would continue to gestate inside them and somewhere in the next two years, they would asymptomatically eventually have massive organ failure. What they feared had come to pass, they have Covid, and the worst was on the horizon.
Some would lock themselves away in desperation, but others would be like Joe...and with nothing to lose would seek to make their lives mean something, even if that something was predicated on a lie.
Some may counter "But such a lie would be cruel and unusual." I agree. It is cruel to tell people the lie that they have or could easily catch a terminal disease where the cure is an experimental untested treatment. Where treatments that have been around for many years for other ailments were banned from use for this one because it interferes with the production and dispersal of the experimental treatment.
Asymptomatic brain cloud is a national emergency. Well, maybe only in SFO.
this is described well in the 'self righteous narcissist'
Conversely, there are many more people who can't help but lie themselves down on the tracks and await some godlike person to come along and "rescue" them from their self-imposed victimization.
Agreed. It's like supply and demand.
I noted that quote too. FINALLY I find someone else who would not pull the lever. I used to teach this in an "ethics/critical thinking" class to college first-years, and it was always me and one lone kid that wouldn't. I always likened my reaction as similar to the one I have about that fence, from Chesterton: “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up.”
It's not that they want to play god, really. Oh, they might want to; but the more essential urge is that they feel an obligation to play god. It isn't a choice that they can make really; they are born to it. They are the Elite, the Anointed. This is their destiny, and now is their moment.
Formerly called ‘The White Man’s Burden’.
Have you read Julius Reuchel’s essay “Bystander at the Switch”? It covers the trolley problem beautifully. His one graphic “Illusion versus Reality” in particular.
https://theideasinstitute.org/2022/02/04/bystander-at-the-switch-the-moral-case-against-mandatory
had not.
i like his graphic very much. it finds great consonance with basiat's ideas about "the seen vs the unseen."
"the seen vs the unseen" immediately calls to my mind henry hazlitt's economics in one lesson, which of course is based on bastiat's essay. from wikipedia:
The "One Lesson" is stated in Part One of the book: "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."[2] Part Two consists of twenty-four chapters, each demonstrating the lesson by tracing the effects of one common economic belief, and exposing common economic belief as a series of fallacies.
Good link. Thanks.
I agree with the sentiment but there is an important correction… ‘ We invented universal human rights…’
No we didn’t. They exist, and always have existed, naturally - like gravity. We just discovered them, like we discovered gravity.
This is why they are in nobody’s gift. They exist in each of us by nature of our existence. Nobody can take these Rights away, although they certainly can stop us enjoying them.
In essence this is the difference between Common Law - which is discovered - and Code Law or Legislation which is invented. Under Common Law, everything is legal unless the Law says otherwise. Under Code/Legislated Law nothing is legal unless the Law says it is.
Some say that Legislation should not be called Law as it confuses provenance, integrity and legitimacy. A question of brand identity, as one might say. Not all colas are Coke.
Code Law is a much more restrictive and open to abuse and arbitrary judgement. It gives Government greater control. In a Common Law society, legislation is only permitted if it keeps to the letter or spirit of the Common Law - that is the sole function of Parliament/Congress to make sure it does, thereby protecting the citizen from the State.
Except - Parliament/Congress have joined the tyrant - that is no longer the case and legislation is designed to undermine Common Law or override it altogether and that violates this principle:-
“It forbids government from imposing a hierarchy of rights on their citizens. It forbids government from sacrificing some people for the benefit of others. It forbids government from knowingly imposing harm on some individuals in order to serve an alleged greater good”.
And that is exactly what legislatures spend the whole time doing.
Spectacular. It is why the American Revolution was truly revolutionary: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Great link; thanks for sharing...
Well it does and doesn't. Let's not conflate it with false analogies... the article is full of facts and the author states (correctly) what a disaster the lockdown/vaccine policy has been.
BUT what if it hadn't been a disaster?
What if we'd faced a Covid that the average age of the dead wasn't 82, but rather was 8.2? Would we react the same way then? Wanna pull the lever yet?
What if these kids were dropping like flies and a vaccine came out that really was 95% effective and did stop transmission in it's wake? Wanna pull the lever yet?
No? Then, yes if the above conditions were true, I'd kill you and pull the lever. My children and their classmates lives are at stake.
If we're going to use thought experiments, let's use them accurately.
so if i can stop the gods from being angry and wiping out the town by throwing you into the volcano, that's the way to go as long as it saves 2 or more people?
also note that you're arguing from false premise. if the disease were that obviously deadly and any of the mitigations actually worked, why do you presume people would need to be compelled to adopt them instead of doing so of their own volition and in their own interest?
you're framing a slanted question that begs the reality.
Indeed, 'our' side (if I may so presumptuous) never said to do nothing at all. We simply said that totally voluntary measures would be enough to 'flatten the curve' and ensure hospitals weren't overrun. Places like North Dakota that never had lockdowns or mask mandates prove it.
Agree you hit a nail on the head with the " if it was that deadly" scenario. I would expect different behaviour too. That's my point, we didn't have a real trolly dilemma.
But why jump to ANOTHER false analogy yourself of volcano gods?
Yes, although assuming we have free-will (and it's not all pre-determined a la David Hume's billiard balls) we have to have an attempt at thinking policies through, and also having the humility to re-consider them if they prove to be clearly wrong like in the fixed-rents example many give.
If you believe in chaotic variance then the latter is even more important I reckon. Myself I think it's more Pythagorean repeating vibrations layers over layers, and we're probably on the cusp with machine-learning of being able to code past some of the seeming chaos. Hopefully it'll feel more like finding fractals within the rainbow than just unweaving the rainbow.
Change is inevitable, progress isn't.
Yes, every technology from fire onwards can be used for good and bad. AI is likely very significant. Half the time I feel like going full smash-the-mechanical-loom luddite, and the other half I see genuine hope and progress in the area.
You’re arguing angels on the head of a pin arguments. Your analogy is as unreasonable as the trolley question. For one thing if the average age was 8.2 the virus would not be a Corona virus. And if people were dropping like flies NO ONE would have to be coerced into social distancing.
I find hobbesian competition for survival a lot more honest than whatever the fuck is going on now.
You try to kill me and pull the lever, I kill you because me and mine are on the other track. It's simple and fair and has nothing to do with morals.
I just don't like it when people delude themselves into thinking their position at the lever make them "the good guy" and me "the bad guy."
No one wants to get run over by a trolley, and fuck whoever wants to run you over.
Game on.
How has nobody pasted this link in yet?
https://youtu.be/lDnO4nDA3kM
Hahahaha! I watched that but forgot all about it!
I would derail the trolley! Okay, there were thirty people on the trolley, all of whom died. But gosh darn it, I stopped the trolley. (Paraphrasing every public health officer over the last two years...)
This is my problem with the academic sphere of philosophy in general. In principle, I understand the need to eliminate extraneous variables to try to explore a fundamental concept- you can "but what about" anything to death if you don't stipulate to any conditions in a thought exercise.
But it never, ever ends up creating practical value. Of COURSE in real life the better thing is to find the solution where no one gets run over or put on the tracks in the first place.
Yup. They're exercises with limited use, but even here we can at least see different thoughts emerge... Kinda like how your tribe is going to behave once you've led it out the dessert.
What if we'd faced a Covid that the average age of the dead wasn't 82, but rather was 8.2?
---------
No matter how dangerous covid was, nothing we did mattered at all.
Not true at all. Plenty of early successes from various MDs, municipalities, or even nations dishing out Vit-D/Calcifediol, zinc, steroids etc.
If it was 8.2 we'd really need to be attuned to this data and high trust sources and journalism. That's a real need.
Mostly the world adopted absurd measures like lockdowns and masks and authoritarianism.
In your counter situation, the same logic is maintained. Authorities would suggest and the wise would obey. The unwise might perish in greater numbers, their choice.
Now if it was obvious I was an immediate threat to your child and yourself, you are allowed to kill me. But shooting up the neighborhood because some person in that area might be a threat to you and kiddies would not be lawful ordinarily - except in crazy-town lock-down.
Hmmm, yes agree with first scenario mainly. The unwise fraction would likely be vanishingly small this time. The bigger problem would have been those supermarket scenarios... the staff really would no-show and the fights in the aisles would be hyper-violent and I expect martial law would be important for any order. Military distribution of food etc.
If there was a year delay to this hypothetical child-saving vax, the lockdowns would be the thing policed harder. I read evidence they were useless as implemented, but the Chinese-style weld people into their apartments and reduce interactions to 2 or less per day seemed to flatten the curve (I accept we're still in datageddon but there seems some logic in that policy). So if in that scenario some infected zealous family felt they were going to waltz down your street coughing and spitting to prove their point, and this would likely lead to several more kids dying in your vicinity, what do you do?
"lead to several more kids dying" hide the kids?
The Chinese example is awful. Isolation in apartment block is impossible as they have discovered.
The best we can ever do is try to confine, quarantine the infected and allow the world to go about their business. That's what public health always did in the past with more or less success. Force has been used but that was rare.
I'm of course assuming a nano-scale airborne viral pathogen with an airborne half-life.
Anyway I pray nothing as deadly AND viral gets created or released.
Once something becomes really deadly, it stops circulating. I gather we don't really know how deadly vs spread relate. Ebola can't really get going because it's hosts perish rapidly. Shortly after exposure they develop symptoms. Now the worse would be a deadly virus with a longer incubation time but enough replication to spread. That is what was feared most about SARs-CoV-2. Turns out to be at best a few days for that.
Happening after one year.
Yup 10% (overall excess)
Although I have seen a real breakdown off QALY effects, it does seem predominantly located in the elderly and co-morbid once again.
We can literally only hope it doesn't get worse over time. And also pray people come to their senses before dose 4,5,6
Or, say, one year, as well as reproductive failure and heart damage?
That essay is quite well written and lays out the case well. Required reading for our masters. (But they will never admit error).
One may forsee and make a judgement on the the intentional consequences of your actions, but not the unintentional.
May I recommend "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, if you are interested in that kind of thing.
I’m not 100% convinced of what you meant to say but as I read this I totally disagree. People often do terrible things unthinkingly. They seemingly are unaware of the consequences of their actions. But if they had thought for one minute those consequences would easily have been foreseeable. That’s why we have different degrees of murder. But they’re all murder. And you go to jail for all of them.
Socialist policies are perfect examples of this. Rents are too high? Restrict rental rates. Twenty years later there are no rentals. Gee! No one could have anticipated that! In Canada there is an elderly politician fighting the mandates saying they are against the Charter of Rights. He was one of the writers of the Charter. NO! They are fully in line with the Charter. Which gives governments tons of loopholes to work around it. Enshrined in an unchangeable document. At the time of its writing I was young and naive and I was outraged. As were many others. But we were a tiny minority. I said at the time ‘as soon as we have elected a tyrant our rights vanish’. It took 40 years, but it happened.
All your examples- which are good ones- are examples of people pulling a lever as opposed to not doing anything to disrupt a "natural" pre-existing system.
I'm reminded of the adage "don't tear down a fence until you find out exactly why it was there in the first place."
I agree that intent may play a role in how we decide to morally evaluate behavior, but I argue that it is CHOOSING TO ACT to interfere or change a state makes you truly culpable when the consequences results in harm- no matter what your intentions were.
Re: Canada *Eyes are opened now, what a disaster! You said it perfectly.
Foreseen consequences can't be unintended.
totally agree. one time i complained to a co-worker about how destructive to birds the wind turbines are, and she said, "well there won't be any birds at all if we don't stop climate change." Hard to argue with that, at least not with someone you have to work with everyday. So to save the sparrows of the future we have to kill all the eagles today? and then of course it will be, "whoops! turns out we didn't need those wind turbines after all!"
We must burn this village to save it.
Remember, pillage before you burn.
Rape first. If you pillage first you might not have a couch or bed to rape on. Very hard on the knees. So, rape-pillage-burn, in that order.
Then, if you’re Blackrock, apply to get the contract to rebuild. And by apply I mean bribe a neocon.
But be smart because you can only fit so much in the boat and we have to get out of here really quickly before the Church shows up with troops, and the water gets really churny on the way back to Denmark.
Stick to heavy durable stuff.
"I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system"
George W. Bush
Even if the apocalyptic scenarios of climate change came true, I'm quite sure the birds would do just fine the moment we all died.
Easy argument to beat. But if someone thinks so shallowly as your coworker it is likely a waste of time to make the argument.
I’m terrible at debating. What would be a one sentence rebuttal? I mentioned nuclear but she scared of “the waste.” The best I could think of was “why are we trying to control the whole planet?”
In this kind of situation I generally say something about their mom.
"Your mom's fat ass blotting out the sun will save us."
"Your mom's thighs generate enough friction to cause brush fires."
"Your mom's hot beefs could power a small city."
You're welcome to use one of those.
lol -- i wish i was the kinda person who could say those things! one thing I miss about everyone working together at an "office" was hearing other people say the things I wish I could say. Now they've sent all of us home to "telework" and it's boring as hell.
Your mom thinks telework is phone sex.
Just to clarify, do I say ‘your...’. Or ‘yo mamma’.
I say "your mom" because I'm white, but you do you.
“It won’t work. We are killing eagles and that won’t do anything for the planet.”
Is this one of those "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" rationales?
Which is kinda like a lazy person's out?
"Dude, we're TRYING, stop criticizing!" and "Perfectionism--so unhealthy, so uncool!"
“”Don’t let the completely useless be the enemy of the good...at least we are doing something”.
"Hard to argue with that, at least not with someone you have to work with everyday."
That's why I am hopeful about memes. If you can point out the truth in a socially acceptable manner, you've got a powerful tool.
I applaud your optimism and share it. Things are bad but we have the tools and the capability to replace and rebuild that which has been infected and turned against us. Meanwhile, every day more people on the margins grow sick of the mess created by this cult.
Another thought experiment, to really drive things home. Assume the world is overpopulated, and that the ecological strain this creates dooms the human species to extinction. The problem can be solved by eliminating 99% of the population. Doing so will result in humanity existing more or less in perpetuity. The extermination of billions of actually existing, flesh and blood humans is then justified by the lives of hundreds of billions of hypothetical future humans.
Point being, the cult's mindset does not require those 5 people on the trolley to even exist. In fact, there's a strong psychological pressure to simply invent them. Oh, we killed more people than we saved, in the real world? No problem, we'll just imagine more people into existence, and count them as among the saved - see, we're the good guys again!
yes, the malthusian cult simply will not die. it feels like some sort of vindication of campbells ideas of universal myths to serve unconscious needs.
it's just the eden story, over and over. once there was a garden and then man went and wrecked it and now we're screwed and must find some way back in.
they never contemplate how AWFUL a world with 99% fewer humans would be. science would stop and recede. so would services, amenities, culture, art, food, and 3,000 other things. who would develop new drugs and surgeries?
they imagine the world of today but with no crowds, but that is NOT what would happen. the technological and societal collapse would be savage.
life would become, once more, nasty, brutish, and short.
Impossible. It would go exactly as modeled/theorized, and if it doesn't, that just means the stupid peasants wanting their freedumbs didn't comply hard enough.
I have taken the time to read WEF reports. They think electricity comes from a light switch and water comes from the tap. They do not understand what they are doing.
Yep. The fantasy of a high-tech robot society with no people is just that. A large population is necessary to maintain the specialization if labor that enables a technological society to be maintained.
We could probably lose some fraction of the population without catastrophic technological regress; e.g. the Black Death wiped out 1/3 of Europe and it didn't go back to the Bronze Age. But there are real limits and the Georgia Guidestones prescription of 500 million is under that limit.
Don't worry John, those things are gone now...🤓
The natural state of humanity is destitute and starving. Anything more is a blessing supplied by a lifestyle they're determined to wreck.
That's just it. The West has had this minor miracle for so many consecutive generations of relatively limited government, that they don't see it as a miracle anymore. They (we) take it for granted.
We saw this at the time of the founding, as well. The OG founders held pretty well to the Constitution, but once they were dead, the new guys REALLY started trying to work their way around it.
Ah the return to the great days of 1890 where hauling water was a daily chore. And we had to worry about our little garden growing well. Hours devoted to daily life kept us from inventing an iPhone. The ability to create and corral energy caused climate to be forever ruined by we nasty humans. And the answer is 1890?
Who will clean their bathrooms? Mow their lawn? Cook their food? Grow their food?
I guess that's where the robots come in.
Aah but who will design, build, repair and maintain these robots?
I do wonder how many engineers are in all these build back better groups.
Bingo. The Trolley Problem is actually so simplified to make its point that it becomes somewhat unhelpful. In reality, unless you possess a rare degree of reliable inside knowledge, you are most often taking someone else's word for it that there even *are* five people on the current track.
This is why loss of trust is such an issue no matter how much the television downplays it.
I saw a great sketch of this years ago where, waaaay down the line with one person on it, there's a veritable stack of people tied to the tracks- and no switch nearby.
The image in https://theideasinstitute.org/2022/02/04/bystander-at-the-switch-the-moral-case-against-mandatory-public-health-measures/ showing the mountain seems per a yandex search unique. A similar dilemma is https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cty7-Z2WAAACu7s.jpg. (https://twitter.com/menschenfracht/status/782882092506054656)
I think you're right with this observation, "i fear the reality is actually even more chilling: they are sure that they are moral"
It reminds me of the C.S. Lewis quote, “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.”
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, these would be do-gooders have to utilize morally bankrupt politicians and bureaucracies to institute their tyranny, giving those that would fight against them a foe that at least has the potential to be persuaded based on their own self interest at least.
I didn't really understand why Biden was the Democratic nominee. It seemed there were better choices for the party that would stand a better shot at defeating Trump. A few might have actually won without cheating.
By putting in Biden they can do anything they want with no individual blame. President Grandpa takes all the blame.
yes, it's sort of a brilliant move to put the grand vizier in charge but keep him/her hidden.
and putting in kamela as veep keeps joe in place as if you go after him for cognitive decline, you're putting her in the big chair.
Joe and Kamala and Nancy and the rest are puppets of the Man Behind The Curtain - The problem is a structural one which cannot be resolved by elections or party politics, it is the existence of a governmental structure which exerts the only real power in United States governance. The loud contest seen in Congress, as typified by the January 6th “hearings” is little more than a distraction, as are the semi-annual and quadrennial electoral contests, in which half of the American people are pitted against the other half, to give their support to one side or the other of a structure which makes no real policy, and which enforces none - they act merely as mouthpieces for the Administrative State and its Military-Industrial-National Security Complex and its plans and intentions. Similarly, the Supreme Court exercises no real power over this State. Political divisions, therefore, are nothing but a very useful tool to distract attention from the real Man Behind The Curtain - besides being a means for massive self-enrichment for the players on that stage, much as professional athletes and entertainers get millions for their work in keeping the public’s attention away from the realities of this situation.
This Administrative State exists without any Constitutional basis, and has, since its inception. It has subverted Constitutional process since then, and now strives to overtly overthrow Constitutional governance. It is the living embodiment of sedition, and it itself must be overthrown and abolished at all levels. https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/the-enemy-within-the-gates-the-corruption
Actually her selection by the real person behind the curtain was because she is willing to do most anything to rise, thus even easier to control. They had no idea that she actually had no ability to even understand her lines. AOC would have been a better choice - somewhat well controlled and greater wit at playing her lines.
In both selection cases, the patsy turned out not to behave. Joe in a petulant fit ordered the Afghanistan withdrawal, a disaster all of his singular decision. Turns out he often breaks his controls.
Time for the quarterly reminder of the C.S. Lewis quote about tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of the citizen.
Also from a more modern work (ironically from a franchise currently in its woke death throes):
"Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel."
Quartlerly reminder . . . ah the good old days.
I think we are up to weekly now !
For those of us who don't immediately get the reference, is that Start Trek or Thanos of the MCU (Marvel Comics Universe)?
In the Old Testament of the Bible, God didn't want to ordain a king. The Israelites whined and complained that they wanted a king like every other people. God picked Saul and warned them having a king was a bad idea that they would come to regret. Paraphrasing, but that's the general gist. Book of First Samuel, chapters 8-12.
It's Loki, in the first Avengers teamup movie. Aged remarkably well. As did the lesson of Saul. :)
I also quoted it. I should have known someone beat me to the punch.
And today, when that man stood up, the rest of the crowd would have pulled him back down to his knees.
The trolley dilemna is a great analogy to communism. It needs a second frame of what happens after the switch is pulled. The individual on the track dies, the 5 others on the track die, the guy pulling the switch dies and everyone on the train dies in a massive fiery derailment.
I suspect this thought that you've written is what had me think perhaps I could leave the switch and jump in front of the trolley. Then perhaps my mushed self would stop it, perhaps not, but at least I didn't kill anyone, I tried my best, and I'm onwards to a better place instead of analyzing it still...
How 'bout jumping on the trolley and hitting the brakes? You might fail and die, or get maimed; but you were trying the only alternative that seemed likely to avert bloodshed.
The key is ignoring leaders that give us only these 2 terrible options. Unfortunately there are millions of useful idiots that will happily throw the switch and feel virtuous while posting it to social media.
C.S. Lewis said it best.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may 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. . . . This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
‘… those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will;…’
Alas that describes our rulers and those in the activist industry fighting all ills and woes inflicted on Mother Earth and favoured groups by hateful Mankind, who must be redeemed in his own blood and destruction.
Upon recent travel, I spoke candidly and kindly with strangers who were not aware of the things I am. I saw extreme discomfort to hear the things I had to say. I think it's important to keep talking and let people process things. You need not convince them during a particular conversation, but only provide information and a different perspective. If we do this collectively and respectively through our close and casual communications with others, I think we can turn this around. People will not continue to do whatever once they are able to piece it all together. Even if they do, well, they will live with the consequences. Our effort is to undo the censoring. It is worth wrecking whatever relationships we may have though because without life or quality of life there really can't be a good relationship; it is merely a facade.
It begins by planting seeds of doubt in their minds. Let them come to a conclusion on their own and that conclusiont will be sometime down the road. We just have to raise the ideas into their consciousness. It is similar to when you buy a new car and then you notice everybody else is driving the same type of car. Before you bought the car you wouldn't have noticed how many of that type of car there were on the streets
I've begun, anytime someone tells me of a strange or sudden illness or death, I ask, did they get the covid shot (with a look of terrible and honest concern, no snark.) This shocks a lot of people and might even make them mad, but I want people to start to connect these dots and see what's right before their eyes.
And if they answer "I don't know" I ask whether the person was being asked to or were mandated by work or school. I also ask which one(s) was/were taken, how long ago, and frequency. Even though the answer might still be I don't know, I explain why I ask the questions. These unanswered questions will sit with a person until they start asking more questions of their own. Like you said, even just asking the question without any explanation at all should set gears turning. Other questions like, are they investigating the death is another one which is a very reasonable question to ask if the death is either unexpected or unexplained. This is what a normal.person would ask under normal circumstances. Even a child would ask this question. If this question is not being asked, question why. By not following up with normal questions, we are saying justice no longer matters and are teaching our kids wrong, even hurting them psychologically.
“The welfare of the people . . . has always been the alibi of tyrants. . . .” - Albert Camus.
Great article. I’m with you on tearing down the bureaucracy wholesale. I also think we need a program of radical self-reliance. We have been caught up in trading independence for comfort. We willingly attached ourselves to centralized grids which ended up controlling us. We need new technologies that emphasize individual freedom, utilize only local resources, and human-scale manufacturing processes. If the grid is only valuable when individuals *choose* to inject some of their own resources into it, the maintainers of the grid aren’t in control anymore. The new republic should measure every proposal based on whether it increases individual independence or not.
I like the use of the trolley problem. Perception and information are so easily manipulated. Emotions can pull someone around and get them to sacrifice for unnumbered unnecessary goals. Rile someone up in hatred allows one to get the angry person to do anything.
The next thing boys are off to fight in a war that benefits oligarchs and allows the oligarchs more money and power.
It's worth considering who tied these people to the tracks in the first place.
That's exactly right. They always start their frame at some random middle nowhere spot instead of the beginning. Just start the frame on train tracks in the middle of the desert. But who tied these people to the train tracks? And who transported them here? Find these people and you will find the flow of money.
No "who" but "W.H.O.", for one, along with the CCP's bioweapons lab in Wuhan, funding from Fauci and the NIH, along with Peter Daszak and his dark money-funded EcoHealth Alliance who drove the gain of function research.
Just don't call it gain of function research. And don't call this a recession because we've redefined the word.
In Christianity, this a version of our core beliefs and doctrine: Lucifer (satan) wanted (wants) to enslave us all to save us. Christ and God would give us freedom to progress on our own (and with his help if we so choose). Satan thought (and thinks) he was (is) the good guy, and should have been our savior. It’s a story as old as time..