It is said that those whom the gods love they destroy. And those whom the gods destroy they first drive mad.
Abstract the gods from it, and it makes perfect sense. The favored ones in any society, favored to the level of "no consequences" are driven mad and ultimately destroyed. This is part of the reason the left is how it is. For 100 years, partly because of the cultural overstructure, facilitated by mass communication with easy choke points, solidified in place by FDR though it started before him, in the long war of the 20th century, they have been beyond control and beyond reproach for 100 years and maybe a little longer now.
No? Go back and look. Even the red scare, who came out of it smelling like a rose and capable to stomping down on anyone impugning their pushing of outright communism and pro-soviet propaganda into the culture? It certainly wasn't the anti-communists.
McCarthy's biggest mistake was being too late. There was nothing he could do that wouldn't be twisted against him and make anti-communists look dictatorial and ridiculous, because the left -- the extreme left even -- was already fully in control of all the choke points. In his defense, most people were unaware of it. My husband managed to be unaware of it in the eighties and thought I was nuts when I pointed it up, until after 9/11 when a lot of the masks fell off.
But the result of being able to do whatever you want, and having power conferred on you by belonging to a -- rather toxic, in this case -- group of believers (toxic because the beliefs are toxic) is that you'll do what you want. And if your beliefs don't come with limiting boundaries -- and Marxism doesn't, being based on envy and an inversion of traditional/Christian values -- then you'll go off the rails to insane. And you'll quickly proceed to the level of insane that makes you blind to anything outside your belief system. Or to how amoral and corrupt the belief system you subscribe to is.
I came across this yesterday: He Eats the Souls of Human Babies. It purports to explain how blind the left can be about Trump, and to an extent it nails it, except the author accidentally reveals his own blindness in an hilarious almost bizarre fashion. Note I know nothing about the author. I'm presuming he is male, though one of the comments makes me wonder. And I have no clue if he's right or left. It's possible he is left and trying to stand in the center. A few of the recently red-pilled have blindspots the size of the universe. Or it's possible he's on the right and still has blindspots that tend left.
Yes, I'll explain, in a minute, but first this is the thing: because until the internet, the culture we swam in was pervasive and default left, even the right has accepted some "rules of the game" that aren't even vaguely so. Event he right tends to assume the left "has a point" on some completely insane things, where the left has no point whatsoever, not even remotely. An even the right knows a lot of things that just ain't so, but which were proclaimed from the rooftops so long we don't question them. One example of this in a recently red-pilled female (Wolfe? I think?) was her assuming that Trump making a bad comment about ONE woman was an insult to all women. WFT, out? A woman is a woman. There are a lot of women I don't like, and some I hole in near-reverence. Why would saying that Occasional Cortex (if I remember correctly) has the brain power of a very small lab rat an insult to all women? Is saying that Joe Biden is a brainless ass and always was an insult to all males? Or even all white males? WHY? Why should women be beyond criticism, even individual women? But this woman seemed to think that without examining it. And none of her commenters picked up on this.
In this case, the rats in the writers' head are as follows: he says that the left didn't need to invent the pee smear there was a lot to attack Trump on in reality, and why weren't they using this?
So he shows a capture from Trump's Art of the Deal:
He says that thing about the 70 year old guy and three blondes from Sweden would be enough to attack Trump on.
This tells me three things about the writer:
1- He's never read any celebrity-written books, which are usually ghost writer written books. Let's be honest, they're all pretty cringe. If you read Hillary's supposed brilliance, or Obama's or ... anyone's you'll come across far worse (if SOMETIMES more politically correct) stuff. Probably the worst was Jimmah Carter's (or Rosalyn's. It's been ten years) book, which for years we owned and used as a game where each of us read a passage at random, and the one that made people laugh the most was the winner. Seriously. Sometimes I wonder if this is the secret revenge of the ghost writer.
2- He doesn't understand males. No, seriously. Even if he's a male, the left has gotten in his head enough that he doesn't get the appeal of a club so powerful that even ugly old guys can pick up three babes. (The blonds from Sweden is a cultural moment. In the 70s for... reasons it was assumed every Swedish girl was a slut. I don't know why. But this was "known" even in Portugal when Swedish girls were largely mythical. Blonds from Sweden, in multiples, were what every guy dreamed about.) If revealed, that cringe would earn him points with 99% of straight males, and get married women to go "he's an idiot, just like my husband" which might dispose them towards him.
3- He doesn't get the left. The left couldn't use that because they themselves obsessively look for celebrities/bigger people to interact with that can pull them up. It's 90% of their dominance. The "I wanna belong to the club of the powerful and have sexual access" is what the left does and their modus operandi right now. Whether they actually BELIEVE Marx or pretend to believe, until it becomes an unconscious reflex is up for debate, because all of them are the type of people who sells their soul for access. And access means "power and babes." Whether the power is money or influence is immaterial, and it's usually both.
His other misfire is his inability to understand why the left won't use "Trump is still proud of the vaccines" against Trump. This requires ignoring that the left tried to make those vaccines MANDATORY. And made a lot of people take them against their will. And their most prominent governors were insane about locking people down for what turns out to be the sniffles. And--
So, yeah, they can't do that.
But other than that, he is correct about how they miss reality by a mile. Or more than a mile. And keep insisting Trump will lock everyone up/put them in camps.
For the record, I've been seeing THAT since Reagan. It is a variation of Whoopy Goldberg's bizarre idea that the Republicans want to institute slavery. Because, you know, the party of individualists, who want to free individuals to make their own decisions are... secretly slavers?
He's right that they are fighting a war not with reality but with the stuff in their own heads.
It has been suggested what they think Trump (and each republican, who's never done it) will do is a projection of what they'd like to do to us. That is possibly more than possible but probable now, looking at what they're doing to Trump and don't seem to realize they're doing.
But it's more likely they are so terrified of Trump/Bush/Reagan/whoever doing this to them because they are terrified of this person and have to SOMEHOW justify it to themselves. Or because they are inherently aware of the power of the centralized government, but still want it, in their own hands, so they're only "allowed" to be terrified of "someone bad" taking it. Which is why they must vilify anyone who opposes them and tries to get power.
Or it's possible this is a magnification of their "cancelling" tactics to individuals who don't agree with them in fields they control. Usually when someone stepped out of line in SF/F what you got was "she's a bad person" or "Do you know what she did?" or the even vaguer and more efficacious "Well, we all know about HER." You never knew why this person was blacklisted, only that being seen with him/her was death to your career, and that they'd done something to deserve it. Whether the something was talking back to an editor (Waves hand in the air, and shakes it all about) or being an evil person who roasts and eats baby puppies on camera is left to the listeners imagination.
And to an extent, while they controlled the media completely the same was done republican candidates in a wink, wink, nudge nudge way. Sure, they assured us Goldwater would start world war III but if you go back and look at it, a lot of it is was wink wink nudge nudge.
But the openness, starting with Bush -- Clinton, because of Rush, really -- and expanding, as the internet expanded, has forced them to be explicit. Hence the "He's gonna put us in camps" or "They want to enslave us" both of which sound completely insane to dispassionate observers. Mostly because they're actually completely insane. It's just insanity proceeding from their political creed, which makes no sense outside it, and which is still indulged by a lot of people who have been so exposed to their creed they think it's reality at some level. As shown above.
The other thing this guy isn't right about is his forecast of the future when he says the next 20 years of American policy will be:
HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN.HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN HITLER PUTIN.
He's wrong, because this is late-stage insanity, and is already not being tolerated. Not by the people. I mean, the left can scream that all they want to, but most of them have already tuned it out.
And frankly, the biggest risk at this point is that they are retroactively white-washing both Hitler and Putin, by applying their names to people who are fighting for individual liberty. You already see this with so many on the right trying to defend Putin in comments, even though Putin is a KGB horror who HAS NEVER CHANGED and wants to rebuild the USSR this time under the name "Russia." Like all the people who believe he is a "nationalist" -- um.... no. He is like the Soviets, an internationalist, it's just that he wants to build a supernational entity subjugated to Russia. But since he identifies Russia with himself (l'etat c'est moi) it's difficult to know where that stops.
No one is -- or no large numbers are -- for now wanting to just defend Hitler (except on the left because of the Jew hatred) but if the left continues applying his name to their opponents and saying that someone inoffensive is just like him there is the risk of our profoundly mal-educated youth looking around and going "Well, if these idiots who can't do anything right don't like Hitler, then I need to find the Nazis and give them a phone call."
Needless to say that's one way things can go seriously wrong for a while. (I don't think they will, not in the US, but in Europe.... it's far more likely.) Not permanently, because again, that kind of government doesn't work, and would fall apart, but for a while.
But more importantly, that's not 20 years of American policy, because we don't have 20 years. At most, highly extended, we have 10. And even then I doubt it. I'm seeing people I never expected, people who aren't political at all, sniffing the air and smelling smoke. That's even more shocking than the leftists being redpilled for some reason, because leftists in our sphere are already TUNED TO POLITICS. A change of direction when you're already on the road is easier than someone who is miles away, in the middle of a field suddenly realizing that the road everyone else has been on is wrong, and deciding to do something about it.
You see, the leftist madness is not just in how they signal/campaign/what they see.
Yes, sure, that's pretty terrible, because they're stuck in the 20th century, and their techniques for the 20th century (demonize person in all the culture;make them look bad; have celebrities endorse the other guy) aren't working, so they're doing in the open a lot of things they did behind the scenes, and they've switched almost exclusively to censorship, legal/economic persecution of opponents AND FRAUD. Fraud being the decisive factor and what leads to insanities like opening the border to facilitate massive fraud. (Not seeing the almost inevitable backlash of that is almost amusing. If we weren't living here, but in a galaxy far away, watching this on a movie screen.)
But nothing else they do works, including economic and social stuff.
To be fair, it never did. It only appeared to because control of the information allowed things to look like they were working. People might not be better off, but if everything told them the country was better off, they assumed their own situation was a fluke. Also, they were afraid to talk about it.
But now we have 100 years of crazy leftist policies, piled one on the other, and the left is trying to solve failures by pushing "the same thing but more intense and harder."
And it's all falling apart. All of it. From education to jobs. From retail to home life. ALL OF IT is DISINTEGRATING.
Mad people can't establish sane policy. Or even save themselves. If fully in control of centralized choke points, they can maybe keep control for a while.
But it ends badly. Very badly. When, I don't know, but the "badly" is obvious. And the "not twenty years" is obvious, because a lot of things are ALREADY at critical point.
The problem, of course, before you say it, is that they can hurt us a lot on their way down. Not catastrophically. Remember I've already seen a variation of this story: disintegration means everyone gets a little bit poorer, every year, not that next year we're all wearing collanders. And rebuilding in these situations can happen bizarrely fast. When the boot is removed from the face of the society and the economy, rebuilding can be in a couple of years.
Look, we've had two really non-Marxist presidents in the last 50 years, and the left was permanently disrupted by them. They're not NEARLY as strong as they still manage to project. They're just loud and still in control of a lot of megaphones, plus the levers they installed in YOUR head from kindergarten.
Repeating: none of their five year plans worked, none of their grand wars worked. No communist regime, EVER was even able to feed its own people. OR perfectly propagandize its own people.
If you think they are now fulfilling a cold war plan, you're giving them way too much credit. And yes, I know a lot of that interview. It works great as a "we meant to do that" if they get you to interpret everything that happened their way. But the interview itself is the psy ops. Whether the person giving it was really a defector or not.
They are not powerful. They are not strong. They are certainly no great planners. (Though they are all of that inside their heads.)
What they are for real is completely insane. And that's bad enough. As grandmother would say "I wouldn't take a madman to heaven with me. He might yet push me down."
In the end we win, they lose. The interim will hurt like a mother.
Be not afraid. Fear fights on the side of the enemy. Be prepared. Keep your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark.
And build under, build over, build around. Because we'll still need structures and functioning institutions (some of them) after the madness is gone.
No comments:
Post a Comment