Miscellany 22: Dr. Neurotoxin’s Home for the Moral Improvement of Wayward Miscellany

1. Welfare for invaders worsens the problem.

“The Welfare Magnet Hypothesis: Evidence from an Immigrant Welfare Scheme in Denmark,” by Ole Agersnap, Amalie Jensen and Henrik Kleven. American Economic Review: Insights vol. 2, no. 4, December 2020, pp. 527-42.

ABSTRACT: We study the effects of welfare generosity on international migration using reforms of immigrant welfare benefits in Denmark. The first reform, implemented in 2002, lowered benefits for non-EU immigrants by about 50 percent, with no changes for natives or EU immigrants. The policy was later repealed and reintroduced. Based on a quasi-experimental research design, we find sizable effects: the benefit reduction reduced the net flow of immigrants by about 5,000 people per year, and the subsequent repeal of the policy reversed the effect almost exactly. The implied elasticity of migration with respect to benefits equals 1.3. This represents some of the first causal evidence on the welfare magnet hypothesis.

2. The first rule of holiness spiral is…

A remark I made in the comments on my “True Beliefs” post of May 2020:

“Sooner or later the concept of holiness spiral—perhaps under a different name—is going to be a standard concept in political science, sociology, etc., and preventing them is going to be an acknowledged Big Problem. But since current academics are involved in a holiness spiral, they cannot acknowledge that a holiness spiral is happening, so a significant change in academia probably won’t happen until after The Big Show.”

It’s notable that “holiness spiral” is a thoughtcrime which people involved in a holiness spiral cannot acknowledge. Why? Because participating in a holiness spiral requires keeping a rhetorical straight face. If you say “The average woman makes just as good a soldier as the average man,” you can’t add, “And by the way, I’m only saying that because I’m in a holiness spiral.” That defeats the purpose, which is to pretend to assert the proposition sincerely. Acknowledging that there is a holiness spiral, i.e. acknowledging that people are saying things that make no sense for political reasons, ipso facto puts one outside the holiness spiral.

Thus for people in a holiness spiral there is a kind of unspeakability of it. It is not like being in an old-fashioned socialist revolution, in which you could say to your socialist friends, “We’re in a socialist revolution and I’m a socialist revolutionary.” It’s not like being in the mafia, where you can talk about the omerta (code of silence) with other mafia guys, as long as you don’t break omerta and blab to outsiders. A holiness spiral is a weird social dynamic which by its very nature prohibits its participants from ever speaking of it.

3. TheDividualist: Religion as the brain’s agency detection module generating false positives.

While this is not rational, it is presumptively evolutionarily optimal: Falsely detecting agency where there is none generally has small or zero costs, but for an animal that deals with social dynamics constantly, failing to detect agency where it exists could be very costly. Suppose you have an enemy who tries to kill you by rolling a boulder down a hill at you. If you think it’s just an accident, you’re not alert for later attempts on your life. As a result, you die. If you have a bias to thinking it was an attempted murder, you’re alert for further attempts on your life, and you live.

In contrast, a false positive, i.e. thinking that it was an attempt to kill you if it actually wasn’t, doesn’t cost you anything.

So of two targets of attempted murder, one with a bias for concluding that there was agency survived to leave more genes in successive generations. Since neural structures are to an extent inherited, evolutionary pressure favors people who over-detect agency.

That humans are adapted to think in terms of agency is obvious, and there’s an wonderfully simple and persuasive demonstration of this in psychological experiments: The Wason Selection Task.

Basically: Take a certain pure logic problem and present it to people. Only about 10% of them solve it correctly. Take exactly the same logic problem, in terms of formal structure, but embed it in an example in which someone might be trying to get away with breaking a social rule. Catching rule-breakers requires solving the logic problem. Result: 75% to 80% of people get it correct. Plainly it engages a brain module that evolved to detect cheaters.

(By the way, the logic problem involves a rule of logical inference called the contrapositive. My blog’s tagline from 2020 illustrates this: “If you’ve got a modem, I’ve got an opinion. Therefore, by the contrapositive: If I don’t have an opinion, you don’t have a modem.”
If this makes you laugh (and I hope it does), it’s because the contrapositive is not an intuitive mental rule for humans, outside of certain social contexts that we’re evolved to deal with.)

4. Outside of Dungeons and Dragons, there is no “lawful evil.”

In 1986, Fortune magazine ran an article on the 50 biggest Mafia bosses in the country. Thirty-three years later, 49 of them were dead. The only one who survived was Michael Franzese.

Franzese says “I don’t know one family of any member of that life, including my own, that hasn’t been totally devastated.”

Evil really fucks up the evil. They like to pretend that they’re happy, that they’re successful, that they’re winners, that they can easily cooperate with each other… but it’s all lies. It simply isn’t true. Their life expectancy sucks. They’re unhappy, stressed out, devastated, and constantly at war with each other.

“But evil is winning!” you say. “They just terminated American democracy and installed themselves in power!” I didn’t say that they don’t fuck up the world for the non-evil as well as each other. Obviously they do. But they are not at ease, can never be at ease, because they’re a pack of cannablistic jackals (apologies to jackals) who attack each other as naturally as they attack anyone else.

See New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s current crisis: His fellow leftists are not only attacking him rhetorically (an excellent example of Jim’s “He’s falling, falling, fallen” rhetoric, by the way); they’ve appointed an “impeachment committee” in the state legislature! This guy was until five seconds ago a darling of the left, a Democrat whose COVID policies killed lots of old white people (i.e. Republican-leaning voters). Now Dems think they don’t need him any more – it’s a solidly left-voting state – so they try to oust him. I chuckle with satisfaction whenever I think of how bewildered he must be right now.

Joining the leftist gang at best provides you with temporary protection from them, which can end unpredictably at any time.

5. Purple Pill in Fiction: The Lives of Tao

“I was possessed by a super-advanced alien, and all I got was The Speech from the father of this chick I’m dating.”

The Lives of Tao by Wesley Chu is a mediocre (being generous) SF book and the male-female stuff is mostly noticeably blue-pilled. For example Our Hero, who is sucked into some high stakes cloak-and-dagger stuff at the start of the book, has to learn all kinds of combat. In the hand-to-hand training, a chick is constantly beating the crap out of him, and this is portrayed as not at all being a barrier to her being attracted to him. Lordy.

However, on page 329 (paperback edition) we suddenly get a red pill passage in the form of a little speech made to Our Hero by the father of a chick he’s dating. The thrust of the speech is, “My daughter’s getting close to The Wall, so you’d better not be toying with her.” There is nothing startling in this passage (especially for a reader of this blog), except for the fact that it comes in the middle of a book which is otherwise so blue-pilled. And after it, we go back to the blue-pill nonsense. Interesting.

Here’s The Conversation, edited for brevity.


“Look, Roen,” Louis began, “let’s get a few things clear. This is the second time that Jill has introduced us to one of her boyfriends, so it’s a big deal. Now, I’m just a country boy from the swamps of Alabama, so I’m going to tell you some of my country-boy sexist philosophies, and you’re gonna listen.”

Roen gulped and nodded. His mind raced as her tried to mask his terror. [Don’t be such a pussy!]

“I like you,” Louis said. “So here’s my philosophy on life and women. I’ve always viewed God as very fair. Girls in their twenties – the world’s their oyster. They’re beautiful. Older men want to date them. Guys pay for everything, and everyone desires them. Men on the other hand, when we’re in our twenties, we’re dumb, we’re poor, and women our age want nothing to do with us.” [They sure don’t if you don’t know how to handle them.]

“But like I said,” Louis continued, “Our Lord is a fair and good God. Women shine bright, but they burn out fast. [Like Roy Batty in Blade Runner.] Their lives are over by thirty. What do you geeks call it? Half-life? Shelf-life? Whatever. It’s shorter than for us men. They have to find the right guy right away or it becomes a game of settling. Guys are like wine. We get finer with time. We start earning money. [Money doesn’t matter as much as blue-pilled people think, but anyway…] We become more confident. Younger girls will still date us. You get me?”

Roen nodded. “I think so,” he mumbled politely.

“So,” Louis continued, “if you waste the best years of my little girl’s life because of your fine-wine-aging process, I’m going to kill you.”

[Appropriate way to deal with this: Get the father fuck-faced drunk, drag him into a poker game and clean him out, then escort him home. (You also might learn some Irish drinking songs. It just hit me, I don’t know enough Irish drinking songs.)]

The father adds, annoyingly, “I might even call you son one day, as long as you know how to hunt and fish.”


What is this weird “son” thing? And who likes to fish? I used to know a couple of dudes who lived near me who would get up at like four in the morning to go fishing. What the fuck? You’d be hard pressed to get me out of bed at 4:00 in the morning for anything other than my house being on fire, let alone for fishing, a pastime so boring it makes golf look dynamic.

By the way, there’s another irritating feature of this novel, which I’ve been seeing a lot lately. Advice to aspiring authors tells them to make their opening chapter, especially their opening paragraphs, exciting or weird or otherwise grabby so the reader is hooked and drawn in. The problem is, a lot of mediocre authors have internalized this advice and spent a lot of time refining their first couple of chapters so the stuff is actually reasonably good. Then you read it and the rest of it turns out to be mediocre pap. Grrr. Thank goodness for libraries; they’ve saved me from buying a lot of crap the first few chapters of which looked good on Amazon.

6. On attempts to design religions or found political movements in existing religions:

Most regulars over at Jimbo’s already get this, I think, but it doesn’t seem to be stated tersely anywhere, so for clarity: Outside of its explicitly prescriptive parts (“Don’t steal”), your religion should restrict itself, as far as possible, to assertions that are true, or assertions that are metaphysical and therefore meaningless by positivist standards. Assertions that are empirically meaningful and false are an entry point for a lot of problems.

“Alligators have teeth.” OK.

“Alligators have metaphysical souls which survive their deaths.” OK.

“Alligators do not have teeth.” No, bad!!! This gets you into all sorts of trouble. See modern leftism with its insistence that e.g. men and women are interchangeable, and so forth. Founding major parts of the ideology on such naked falsehoods has led to all kinds of avoidable complications for the left, viz. necessitating taking over the entire media and educational establishments just to slow the propagation of truth.

(Lately leftism has entered an advanced stage in which it insists that, e.g., everyone assent to the notion that a person’s sex is whatever the person wants it to be, a flagrantly obvious falsehood which is asserted because it is a flagrantly obvious falsehood. But that is not doctrine designed to acquire and unify adherents; it is a naked bullying power flex perpetrated by an entrenched ideology. It generates opposition; leftists are willing to pay that price because they’re a bunch of power-mad sadists. And of course they’re caught up in a holiness spiral.)

Red Pill In Reality: Pregnant Lesbians edition

Reuters May 2015: Pregnancies more common among lesbian, gay, bisexual youths

“About 85 percent of female students identified as heterosexual and about 90 percent only had male sexual partners… about 13 percent of heterosexual females and about 14 percent of females who only had male sexual partners had been pregnant, compared to about 23 percent of lesbian or bisexual females and about 20 percent of girls who had male and female sexual partners.”

Then we get this statement from an “expert”:

“What really accounted for most of the risk for the girls was sexual behavior,” Lindley said.

Thank you for that.

I was initially going to report on this with the comment that lesbianism may just be another shit test, as I am not the first person to conjecture. Not to deny that, but it’s also true, apparently, that “gay” male teens get more girls pregnant than “straight” male teens. What the fuck?! And apparently young women’s reporting of themselves as gay, straight, or bi doesn’t have a hell of a lot to do with who they’re doing:

The Federalist August 2017: Why Are Lesbian Teens Having Two To Seven Times As Many Babies As Their Heterosexual Peers?

Numerous studies across many nations find that sexual-minority youth aged 14 to 19 have pregnancy rates two to seven times greater than their heterosexual peers… Only one study to date, published earlier this year, has examined the pregnancy rates of adult sexual-minority women. It reveals the same thing: unintended pregnancies are higher among sexual-minority women than their heterosexual peers…

Not only is female sexuality itself fluid, but so are the personal identifiers women choose for themselves. Remarkably, more than 50 percent of women who had both male and female partners in the last year identify not as bi-sexual or lesbian, but as heterosexual. Eleven percent of women who have known only female sex partners identify as heterosexual, and—remarkably—only 19 percent of women who’ve ever had sex with another woman consider themselves either “lesbian” or “homosexual.” A young woman recently told me that she is a lesbian, but her sexual attraction is to men. Apparently she’s not an outlier.

That last one is simply a bid for attention and a claim of privilege, i.e. oppression privilege. When you create a reward for being X, more people are going to claim to be X, obviously. It is sad, too, that we’ve lost words like heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, lesbian, etc. But that’s life in a leftist regime: No word’s plain meaning is safe.

Political Philosophy and the Theory of Martingales

My political philosophy is the theory of martingales.

A martingale is a dynamic stochastic process which— don’t fucking freak out. “Dynamic” simply means changing over time and “stochastic” means having a random component. In other words, dynamic stochastic processes are Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Anyway, a martingale is a generalization of the concept of a random walk, a dynamic stochastic process which has an expected change of zero. That’s all, no biggie. If you can’t handle this go look at some funny cat videos on YouTube and I’ll see you for my next post. Besides, I’m shuffling some ignorable technical asides off to the footnotes.(1) Maybe that will get this published in USA Today; they fucking love the theory of dynamic stochastic processes.

It’s trivially easy to prove that the evolution of a rational person’s beliefs over time is a martingale.(2) Basic idea: If you’re rational you’ll have anticipated all future events that are anticipatable, so the only thing left over to change your beliefs over time is events that weren’t anticipatable. That is, you cannot predict the future evolution of your own beliefs.

The more precise statement of this explicitly mentions events’ probabilities, but it’s the same idea.

Sample path: Rational agent’s belief over time in 2-space.

I briefly discussed some implications that this fact has for politics in one of my first posts, The Mind Cannot Foresee Its Own Advance, and I want to return to this theme. Despite the opening sentence of this post, my entire political philosophy is not really the theory of martingales; I just wanted to open with a strong statement. Like Beethoven’s famous duh duh duh DUH.

Now the human race (SPOILER ALERT) is not rational, but we are learning over time in way that involves paying attention to data. (Some of us are, anyway.) This is true at least for subjects that aren’t too politicized, e.g. astronomy, and for pretty much all subjects in investigations and discussions outside of our formal institutions (which are hotbeds of reality-hating dogmatism).

But note that crucial caveat: for subjects that aren’t too politicized. We need to keep the “politicize everything” crowd disempowered and at the margins of society so they can’t step on the human race’s ability to advance. Things must be kept as loose as possible so we can continually follow the unpredictable martingale of our evolving beliefs toward the truth.

I mentioned astronomy as a subject that’s not too politicized, but of course no subject is safe from the left. Apparently the USSR had a Marxist dogma about whether the universe is finite. I forget which way Marxist dogma landed on that, but the point is, the dogma didn’t come from data; it came from some notion about whether an infinite universe was consistent with dialectical materialism. (LOL, WTF?) And of course there was the Lysenkoist period, which— according to a Soviet biologist in the Gorbachev era— set Soviet biology back by at least a decade.

Obviously neither astronomy nor anything else is safe from the increasingly insane left, a mob that has decided that acronyms are racist and the statement that 2+2 = 4 is western cultural imperialism.

Not that further examples are needed these days, but an example of how this insanity affects hard science: Bill Nye the Science Guy used to have a video explaining how XY and XX determine a person to be male or female. Netflix censored that video. Nye himself, apparently quite the screaming pussy, disavowed reality and embraced “gender fluidity” theory around that time.

These are examples of the human race moving backwards, but it’s not enough to not regress; we need to advance. And no dogma can ever say “We’ve figured it out; no further intellectual innovations are valid,” because the future evolution of our beliefs is unpredictable.

This doesn’t mean you can’t hold the opinion that certain matters are for practical purposes settled. Often the probability of further significant revisions is small enough (based on current information) that that’s a reasonable belief. But it does mean that no person or group should ever be allowed the power to stop other people from investigating the allegedly settled subject.

Einstein sure as shit wasn’t predictable based on Newton. If future discoveries were predictable they wouldn’t be discoveries.

I’ll return again (probably ad nauseam) to a theme of this blog: The things that many of us used to believe about women were largely the exact opposite of the truth. God forbid that we not be allowed to revise our beliefs over time! I won’t get into specifics much— I rehash them enough— but let me mention that some of this body of knowledge about female psychology is relevant for a single man on the dating market and some of it is relevant from a point of view of “social policy.” (A lot of it is relevant for both.) An example: That a lot of women want to play a game of “Let’s you and him fight” between men, including groups of men at a societal level, has existential implications for the survival of our society. That’s something I never could have foreseen when I was 15, or probably when I was 25.

As Eliezer Yudkowsky said in a lucid moment: “Let the winds of evidence blow you about as though you are a leaf.” This is nothing but a poetic formulation of the martingale proposition.

Does all this imply that free speech absolutism should be non-negotiable? Actually, yes, in principle that’s exactly what it implies. But. We have seen in the last 75 years or so that that may not be a long-run stable situation. Total freedom of speech, as well as providing enormous benefits, also provides malign power-seekers unrestricted opportunity to coordinate and plan with each other. This is a problem because (along with 99 other reasons) when they acquire power one of their first moves is to crush all ideas they don’t like. So it’s possible that level-1 censorship might be necessary to prevent level-10,000 censorship. E.g. we might have to exclude communists from universities because if we let them in, they’ll soon take over and exclude everyone but communists.

Or maybe it’s not that simple. There are enormous practical problems with ceding anything to the idea of censorship because that abandons the clearest Schelling point on the issue. Maybe the best formulation of the problem is not “Choose zero censorship,” because that might not be a long-run tenable situation, but “Choose the minimum sustainable level of censorship.” Not to cop out, but: It’s complicated.

In any case…

The human race faces fearsome challenges, as it always has and always will. We must be free to have our beliefs changed unpredictably by new evidence if we are to learn, adapt, and overcome the tests.

Or to put it more tersely: Rational learners’ belief revisions are mean-zero, so kill all the censors!


(1) A martingale is a generalization of the concept of random walk because the only requirement for a variable to be a martingale is that it have an expected (mean) change of zero. A random walk, at least the versions that I’m familiar with, also typically assumes that the probabilities are symmetric about that mean and indeed, frequently assumes that the probabilities are Normal. It also assumes that the probability distribution governing the dynamics is constant over time. A martingale allows the probability distribution to mutate all it wants, provided that one feature, the mean-zero change, always holds. For example, a martingale needn’t have a constant variance.

(2) It’s an immediate consequence of the Law of Iterated Expectations. Here’s another way of seeing it: If you’ve ever studied Statistics, you’ll remember the obvious fact that a rational forecast algorithm has zero-mean forecast errors. So if you’re rational, then the mean revision to your beliefs as you correct your forecast errors will be… See? Not that hard.
By the way, note that if Joe has data that Jill doesn’t, then Joe can predict how Jill’s beliefs will change when she gets the data, but Jill can’t predict that. She has to wait until she gets the data.

(3) Invisible bonus footnote only for those who read the other two! If all this sounds vaguely familiar but you can’t quite place it, it might be because you once read about the Efficient Markets Hypothesis in Finance. Note the EMH assumes rational market participants. Its random walk implication is an example of the point I’m making in this post. I exposited this idea here.

The Two Most Likely Outcomes: Junta or Government as LARP

The pessimistic crowd thinks, or claims to think, that the left could successfully genocide traditional Americans. This is utterly detached from reality. Keep in mind that there are about 2.2 million members of the armed forces – counting reservists – and about 145 million Americans who report having a gun in their household. There are north of 390 million firearms in the US. People who say we can’t successfully fight without a leader are neglecting the role of sheer brute-force quantity.

Example: Two professional soldiers who have been training together for years and are total bad-ass professionals, against a million other people, who are not bad-ass professionals. Who do you think will win?

Right. So we agree on the basic point and we’re just quibbling about where the line is. (“We’re just haggling over the price,” as the old joke has it.) (1)

145 million divided by 2.2 million equals about 66. We don’t have to ensure that we take casualties at a ratio less than 1-to-1. We could take casualties at a ratio of 23 to 1… and still have 100 million of us left when the military has literally run out of soldiers! We could take casualties at 46 to 1 and still have 50 million of us left when the military is gone!

But of course even this take is absurdly pessimistic, since a large fraction of the soldiers – probably a majority – are not going to participate in a genocide of incorrect Americans and would in fact fight it. The notion that white army guys are going to round up white Americans and genocide them is fucking ridiculous on its face.

By the way, the military has a dictum for officers: “Never give an order that won’t be obeyed.” Obviously the existence of this dictum implies that orders are disobeyed sometimes. And the dictum is a response to disobedience of orders that fall well short of “genocide all politically incorrect people.”

Yes, you in the back, what’s your question? “Dude, what about the officer purge that the Biden Administration is trying to do right now?!” That’s the officers, not the guys with guns.

Most people who have thought seriously about this danger, e.g. the commentariat at Eric Raymond’s blog, including the ex-mil people, have always said the citizens would win. I mention Raymond’s blog for no particular reason, except that IIRC it’s where an ex-mil guy once weighed in with this fact: When the US military runs war games for this scenario the US civilian population always wins.

Yes it’s outrageous that they’d run such war games, but the results are encouraging.

I also think the pessimists and I have different goals in mind. My victory is preventing genocide, not to personally survive. I mean, I want to survive, of course, but my main concern is that the good guys prevail in the end. I get the sense that the “Waaaaah, we can’t win” crowd is actually thinking, “There’s no guarantee of a victory in which I, personally, am not injured or killed.” Of course there isn’t. We are contemplating total war. The question is which side is going to win, not whether one side is going to win without suffering so much as a scratch.

If you’re hoping for a victory in which you have no danger, I’ll just remind you that these are basically Communists straight out of the twentieth century: The first thing they’ll do if we don’t resist them will be to genocide us. Keep that in mind and let it stiffen your resolve. I get the sense that a lot of the “Wah, it’s no use fighting” crowd (wussies) are too young to actually remember the Cold War, the reality of the Soviet Union. They really will kill you. It’s the first thing they’ll do if they have the power to do it. In the last century they murdered as many as 100 million people all over the world. The first sign that the hard left has taken over a nation is mass-scale slaughter. So firm up your spine, because we have nothing to lose by, um, vigorously resisting them if and when they come for us.

How did 20th-century governments accomplish such megadeath? Lots of disarmed populations and, I think more importantly, the fact that people simply couldn’t believe that they’d do it. We have like 400 million firearms, and the history of the twentieth century. When the Sargent says to his soldiers, “Round these people up into the cattle cars for relocation,” both the soldiers and the people they’re ordered to round up know what it means: Take them to death camps for genocide. The soldiers will mostly disobey, and the people will resist because they know they’ll be murdered if they don’t.

We know that left-wing governments really will genocide their own populations. Attempts to do this can no longer be protected by the population’s sheer disbelief that a government would do such a thing.

It’s the same situation if they’re “only” coming to take your guns. They’re re-branded 20th century communists: Why do you think they want to disarm you?

Another thought: Unlike the goal of people like e.g. the Jimmists, my goal is not to take control of the government, nice though that would be. It’s to avoid being genocided. To do that we don’t actually need to get Chuck Schumer out of the Senate, etc. We just need to become a sufficiently hard target so that the bad guys with guns stop trying to kill us.

It won’t be long before all of their guys with guns just refuse to continue the attempted slaughter. After the people they try to slaughter have taken down say a third of them, I’m pretty sure the remaining two thirds will suddenly find a lack of interest in obeying orders to attack. Cops and Antifa shock troops will start calling in sick on those days, or they will simply flat-out refuse to follow such orders. What’s Pelosi going to do about it when she orders a bunch of Washington cops to (try to) assassinate some right-wingers and the cops say “No”?

Such outright refusals have happened lots of times, including recently. After one of the BLM episodes in Atlanta in 2020, cops in Atlanta started calling in sick/resigning. Good guy cops in Michigan refused to enforce at least one of Iron Dingbat Whitmer’s orders. And note that the Second Amendment sanctuary town, county, and state idea is spreading, with sheriffs flat-out announcing that they won’t enforce or allow the enforcement of unconstitutional disarmament measures. On the other end, lots of Trump’s Executive Orders, etc, were flat-out defiantly ignored by many people in the executive branch.

There just aren’t that many cops/mils who genuinely want to genocide people of incorrect skin color… let alone want to do it enough to risk death for it!

And cops who aren’t even willing to risk their pensions are not going to risk their lives.

So then what happens? One possibility is a palace coup in which the military or law enforcement guys with guns get pissed at the ridiculous orders to risk themselves for leftists’ genocide fantasy, and take out the leftist government. Then we have a military junta government, which compared to off-the-leash leftism is heaven on earth.

Another possibility is this: When the mil and cops stop obeying orders to round us up and kill us, we eventually realize that they’ve stopped and the enforcement mechanism for less extreme leftist edicts is also gone. The federal government becomes ineffectual. Lo, many an edict issues forth from the marble-lined sewer halls of Washington D.C., but the edicts are ignored. This will be an amusing (if you can ignore all the bloodshed that precedes it) new equilibrium: The President, House, and Senate continue to go through exactly the same Executive Orders and “passing of laws” and whatnot that they do today. And the laws are solemnly written into the Congressional Record. And nothing else happens. Joe Senator feels great because the New York Times continues to report, in a serious tone, on the bill he co-sponsored becoming law. And since nothing ever comes of that, except some ink is applied to some paper in Washington, everyone else is happy too.

We’ll have reached the state of Government as LARP.

In other words, we become like tons of other governments in the world. Consider some of the governments in the Americas, for example. Or this delightful factoid I heard about France years ago: Apparently in the early years of this century, some whackjobs in France decided to pass a law banning smoking in restaurants and cafes! (In France!) A few years later, the records for Paris showed that not one, not a single, ticket had been issued to anyone under this law. Enforcement was literally zero.(2) I’m sure that you, dear reader, can think of many examples like this from all over the world.

So in 2023 President Harris signs into law a requirement that every person, upon arriving to school or work in the morning, shout “I love transgenders!” three times. The law is written into the Congressional Record and is never heard from again.

Of course, SJWs will shriek with rage at the lack of compliance. That’s fine. Normal people are happy because it’s not enforced, and SJWs are happy because they have something about which they can shriek with pretend rage. Everybody wins!


(1) Another take on the point that quantity matters: If it doesn’t, then if you’re a right-leaning reader, why are you worried about immigration?

(2) And no, it wasn’t because compliance was 100%, duh. This is France. Glenn Reynolds (or someone) passed along an anecdote in which a guy was smoking in a café and serenely ignoring a French Karen who was telling him she was outraged at him. “You’re outraged,” he repeated blithely, continuing to smoke.

Though I am curious about what they used for lube in Mississippi in the 1800s

Here are some quotes from the USA Today article “5 books not to miss”, January 2, 2021. I present the entire list of books from the article with some of its commentary on the books, and the whole fucking thing is leftist cultural propaganda. You’d think that a tiny saving grace would be that, every once in a while, leftists would get bored of constantly spewing propaganda. Nnnnnnnope. They fucking love it!

  1. “The Prophets,” by Robert Jones Jr.

What it’s about: Jones’ powerful debut novel centers on a forbidden love between two enslaved gay men on an antebellum Mississippi plantation.

The buzz: Kirkus Reviews calls it an “ambitious, imaginative, and important tale of Black queerness through history.”

So two men fuck each other in the ass. Yeah, so?

  1. “Outlawed,” by Anna North

What it’s about: It’s 1894, and Ada is an outlaw. After a year of marriage and no pregnancy, in a town that hangs barren women as witches, the teenage wife joins the notorious Hole in the Wall Gang, a new safe haven for outcast women.

The buzz: “It’s ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ meets ‘True Grit’ in the best sense…”

  1. “A Lie Someone Told You About Yourself,” by Peter Ho Davies.

What it’s about: A family has a child after terminating an earlier pregnancy that yielded catastrophic test results and grapples with the decision made and the unending work of parenting.

  1. “Bone Canyon,” by Lee Goldberg

What it’s about: Eve Ronin, the youngest female homicide detective in LA, always feels like she has something to prove, but especially when a cold case heats up…

  1. “The Push,” by Ashley Audrain

What it’s about: Blythe never wanted to be a mother but changes her mind for a man she loves. But motherhood turns out to be everything she feared and her conviction that there is something deeply wrong with her daughter tears her family apart.

Summarizing: “Black queerness through history” plus “slavery!” (the Emacipation Proclamation was in 1863, more than 150 years ago) plus “Yay, abortion!” plus other forms of anti-natalism (“the unending work of parenting”) plus “women, oppressed by the Patriarchy as they are, have something to prove.”

Apropos of nothing, here’s a quote from Orwell’s 1984:

Winston turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely.

Abusive Relationship Chart

Does any of this sound familiar?

You may be in an abusive relationship if they…

  1. Stop you seeing friends and family.
  2. Won’t let you go out without permission.
  3. Tell you what to wear.
  4. Monitor your phone or emails.
  5. Control the finances, or won’t let you work.
  6. Control what you read, watch, and say.
  7. Monitor everything you do.
  8. Punish you for breaking the rules, but the rules keep changing!
  9. Tell you it is for your own good, and that they know better.
  10. Don’t allow you to question it.
  11. Tell you you’re crazy, and no one agrees with you.
  12. Call you names or shame you for being stupid or selfish.
  13. Gaslight you, challenge your memory of events, make you doubt yourself.
  14. Dismiss your opinions.
  15. Play the victim. If things go wrong, it’s all your fault.

Stop Paying Attention to Moldbug

Pardon me while I give Moldbug a good beating here, but I’ve had enough. He is dangerous, because he somehow gets people to take his flatulent amateurish bloviations seriously.

On the thousand-to-one chance that Moldbug reads this: I’m sorry, man, but I believe this is for the Greater Good.

To skip directly to the main example of this post, do a search for the word “finance” (search is CTRL+F in most browsers).

The gentlest thing I can say about Moldbug’s fanboys is that they mistake style for substance. References to obscure historical episodes… florid vocabulary… a deliberately “iconoclastic” way of looking at things… These are not intelligence; they are the superficial symbolism of intelligence. It is as if Moldbug were to write a 10-page “proof” that 3 is not a prime number, complete with… ACTUAL FOOTNOTES!!! And people take him seriously because of this. The presence of ACTUAL FOOTNOTES!!! does not change the fact that what he’s saying is that 3 is not a prime number. Ignore the style, goddammit.

PAY ATTENTION TO THE SUBSTANCE, NOT THE FUCKING STYLE.

As a prolegomenon (Note fancy vocabulary! I’m awesome!) I can think of things that Moldbug gets right, but they’re obvious. One, in his oft-cited writings like http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/moldbugs-open-letter/ and https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2016/04/coda/, Moldbug takes thousands of words to assert that democracy doesn’t work in reality the way it does in textbooks. No shit. Everyone already knows this. Better writers could illustrate it in two words, e.g., “corporate welfare” or “unnecessary wars.” Granted, belaboring the obvious has value– the obvious needs all the belaboring it can get these days– but let us not confuse the necessary work of obviousness-belaboring with profound and brilliant insight.

(In this blog I sometimes belabor the obvious, with occasional original (I hope) insights. As far as I know, the obviousness-belaboring has not yet prompted anyone to assess me as an Einstein-level Galaxy Brain.)

Two, as I noted here, Moldbug correctly observes that leftism does not lose steam when it exacts concessions. Trying to deny it steam by partially giving in to it has never worked. But again, he is hardly the only person to have noted this.

Now to fisk two specimens of stupid Moldbug notions; they could be multiplied vastly.

First, Moldy denies that the Nazis and fascists– the real ones, from Europe in the first half of the 20th century– were left-wing; he claims they were “right-wingers” and “reactionary.” This statement is wrong, regarding the Nazis. That Moldbug asserts it is… puzzling, because his various references reveal that he understands these things well enough to know better. He knows the salient facts about the National Socialist German Worker’s Party.

About Italy’s Fascists, Moldbug’s own attempt to establish their non-leftist nature is tragically inept. He cites many facts all proving that they were leftists, but quotes one Nitti, a contemporary of Mussolini, who characterizes Mussolini as “white,” i.e. reactionary in the political color coding of that time and place. Funny. There’s a blast of facts that show Mussolini as, first a Communist, and later, apparently still a Communist but in a non-Communist costume. Then we get one person calling him an anti-Communist. Maybe some of the evidence that led to Nitti’s assessment? None that’s at all persuasive. Moldbug quotes Nitti bewailing that under Mussolini, “All form of liberty has been suppressed; press liberty, association liberty…” Does that sound left or right? And this is presumably Moldbug’s best stab at proving Mussolini was a “reactionary.” If he has more evidence, why hide it? Well, if the best you can do still paints him as a Commie, I think we’re done here.

I realize there are those who think that Moldbug uses an incredibly subtle rhetorical technique of saying things other than, perhaps the opposite of, what he means. There are two problems with this notion. One, there are places in which he plainly says what he means, e.g. when he points out that democracy in practice bears little resemblance to democracy in theory. This puts his readers in the awkward position of having to judge whether any given claim is advanced seriously or impishly.

Two, this technique cannot be used on the people who need it most. Consider the notion that Mussolini was really right-wing, argued so ineptly that it convinces you that he wasn’t right-wing. That technique would never work on the leftists whom Moldbug wants to convince. Never in a million years are they going to read that closely. They “know” that Hitler and Mussolini were right-wing, and when they see an argument to that effect they are going to accept it at face value. They are not going to carefully interrogate it to detect any flaws and then be convinced of the opposite. Sheesh.

I was in several bands when I was younger. One thing I noticed with amusement is that no matter what your band name or your song lyrics, people often interpreted them as being about sex or drugs. If the name of your band was “the Screaming Eagles” people would find a way to interpret that as being about sex or drugs. I think Moldbug’s fanbois do that: They want a clever dissection of the modern political consensus, so they “find” it. Moldbug is a Rorschach test, whatever else he is.

Now for a long-form ass-kicking. Thanks to SimplyConnected for providing me (a couple of years ago) this Moldbug link on finance. If you are still a Moldbug fanboi after reading this, I can’t help you, tovarisch.

(NOTE! Use of Russian for no particular purpose or reason! I must be “clever”! And therefore my political views must be right!)

First, he wants total “commanding heights” socialism:

Step one: Nationalize all market-priced financial assets at the present market price, exchanging them for new dollars. USG buys all publicly-traded American securities, and foreign securities held by Americans. It thus becomes the sole owner and operator of all public[ly traded] companies, and in doing so it also acquires all the banks (for the price of their common stock, which is not much these days). By acquiring all the banks, it acquires all their dodgy mortgages and other “bad” securities. Obviously, after this process, all debts USG owes to itself are cancelled.

Hedge funds, private equity, and other exotic assets held by individuals may require some appraisal…

Stop. Hedge funds and private equity are not “assets.” They are investment organizations that manage assets. Hedge funds are basically mutual funds that wear tight black leather pants and 4-inch spike heels and carry a knife. Private equity firms buy controlling interests in companies’ stock and hope to manage the company better than the current management, often with the intention of selling their stock after it has (they hope) appreciated. HFs and PE hold assets, but they are not assets. Is this a nit-pick? No, because most of the assets they hold – thinking mainly of hedge funds here – are already included in the “market-priced financial assets” that Moldbug mentioned in his previous paragraph. That he doesn’t grasp this should by itself make his fanbois question his guru status.

We continue:

Hedge funds, private equity, and other exotic assets held by individuals may require some appraisal. But these are held by rich people, who are patriotic [snort, I suspect this is an example of Moldy saying the opposite of what he thinks] and don’t mind taking a bit of a haircut [LOL, ditto]. Also requiring appraisal are homes; if you are a homeowner, USG calculates your home equity (perhaps using an automated appraisal, such as Zillow’s), and buys it from you. You are now a renter; USG is your landlord. Your new rent is calculated as a percentage of your home appraisal.

The result of step one is that USG owns all financial assets, major corporations, and real estate.

The government owns the bulk of assets. What could possibly go wrong?! Historically, that has always worked out well! I imagine his fans saying, “That doesn’t matter, because if you keep reading you’ll see that his plan involves the government selling all that stuff back to us.” Yeah, about that…

Moldbug continues by telling us that he wants to basically triple a major measure of the money supply:

In return, each USG citizen has one number: how many dollars they have. Perhaps the most straightforward way to implement this is to give every American a direct account at the Federal Reserve (a privilege now held only by banks). Thus, all your portfolios are automatically sold at the current market price, and your statement is mailed from the Eccles Building. [There is no reason to mention the Eccles Building, tovarisch.] The little number at the bottom, however, is the number you care about. This number has not changed. If your portfolio was worth $250,000, you now have $250,000.

Step two: Triple each of these dollars. If your portfolio was worth $250,000, you now have $750,000.

Oh my, he’s going to (basically) triple electronic bank deposits. Sooner or later that will result in serious inflation.

Then a debt Jubilee:

Thanks to our cleanup, these debts are now held by USG itself (which acquired them from the old financial institutions). There is no reason for USG, which can print dollars, to be squeezing them out of the hides of the poor. Forgive them all. Call it a Jubilee.

I don’t know what its direct effects would be– and neither does Moldbug or anyone else– but there are serious long-run implications of baking expectations of future Jubilees into people’s beliefs.

What’s that you say? You’re a Moldbug fanboy and you can’t see a problem with setting a precedent for debt amnesties? Well, can you see any long-run problems with setting a precedent for immigration amnesties?

Please tell me that just made you go, “Um, wait a minute…”

Moldbug apparently is also afraid that tripling everyone’s money won’t cause enough inflation, so he says,

Step three: Calculate the expected shortfall in future entitlements (Medicare and Social Security), and print new dollars to fill the gap. (About 50 trillion of them, to be exact.) For extra credit, print unripe dollars (bonds) and issue them directly to the actual entitlement recipients, as per the actuarial value of their policies.

On top of all the other money printing, an additional fifty trillion dollars.

He then says,

We are going to break this printing press. But before we break it, we have to use it…

No, you’re not going to break the government’s ownership of the money printing press. If we can’t even force the current government to respect the Constitution, how are we going to force future governments to forswear the printing press? Retarded.

Step four: Auction all the financial assets previously nationalized—corporations, real estate, etc. There is certainly plenty of cash around to buy them with. Destroy the dollars received in the auction.

Why are we selling the assets we just bought? We bought them to close out a broken financial system, in which the relationship between asset prices and dollars was unstable and unhealthy. We are selling them to establish their free-market price in a stable, healthy financial system. We do not know what the right relationship between the number of dollars in the world and the net price of its financial assets should be. So we ask the market, and the market tells us.

Absurd. First of all, the market prices when the money supply is X are going to be very different from the prices after the money supply is like one-half X, or whatever it is after the government “Destroy[s] the dollars received in the auction.”

(Note: There are lots of kinds of “money” in a sophisticated financial system like the US’s, but I think I can make the important points without dwelling on that. Much.)

You see what he thinks he’s doing (and he’s explicit about it in passages I haven’t quoted): He’s trying to take all the asset values that are pyramided on a certain amount of base money and actually turn them into base money. Then sell the assets back to the private sector, destroy the money they paid for those assets, then lock in the remaining amount of base money forever.

He thinks this will “close out a broken financial system, in which the relationship between asset prices and dollars was unstable and unhealthy” and create a “stable, healthy financial system.”

This is unhinged. A simple illustration of why:

Suppose the government has printed 6 dollars (multiply this by $10 trillion if you like) and has decreed that for all time, the supply of dollars shall not be increased. (Let’s ignore the facts that (1) there’s no way for the current government to enforce this constraint on the future government, and (2) this is not how most money works– the vast majority of payments are not made in base money, which is what the government “controls,” but in other kinds of money that are supported by base money.) Now suppose that you honestly believe that the value of your house is three dollars and the value of your stock portfolio is four dollars. Someone says, “But dude, that’s a total of seven dollars, and there are only six dollars in circulation!” You shrug and say, “I’m not planning on selling all my stocks and my house today. I believe that if I did sell my house, I could get three dollars for it, and if I were to sell all my stocks, I could get four dollars for them. I understand that there are only six dollars in the economy, but since I’m not going to try to sell seven dollars worth of stuff, I don’t anticipate a problem.” And indeed, most of the time the economy is in exactly this position, and it does not, in fact, lead to any problems.

Occasionally there’s a sudden decrease in confidence about asset values and we have a market crash (in real estate, stocks, or whatever). What’s the solution?

There is none.

None that I can see, anyway. This, I believe, is just something we have to live with in a market economy. And if there is a solution, it sure as shit isn’t Moldbug’s.

He thinks, for some reason, that the total value of all assets in the economy should never exceed the amount of base money in circulation. He thinks that current asset values can exceed current base money only because everyone expects the US government to print more money in the future. He doesn’t get the private sector’s rational anticipations that most of the time, most of these assets won’t all be liquidated at once. And they’re never ALL liquidated at once. That has never happened and never will. Not to mention irrational exuberance that can send asset values into orbit for no particular reason.

(Analogy: It’s like insisting that the total supply of tacos should be enough to satisfy demand if everyone had a sudden craving for tacos at the same time. That rarely (with tacos actually never) happens, and insisting that Taco Bell maintain a large enough supply of tacos to meet such a theoretical demand is obviously absurd.)

Moldbug doesn’t get that there is no way to force the financial system to impose the aggregate constraint that (value of all assets) is less than or equal to (total amount of base money in circulation). There’s no way to even know that first quantity, the “correct” value of all assets! How are individual bond traders, or stock traders, or real estate speculators, going to price the assets they buy and sell to guarantee that the inequality always holds!? Take stocks. In order to guarantee that the total market value of all stocks plus the total market value of all other assets in the economy is no greater than 2 trillion dollars (a number Moldbug throws around several times), every individual stock portfolio manager would have to know the current asset value of literally every other asset in the economy! Then they could (in theory) refuse to buy or sell stocks for prices that would put (stock values + other assets’ values) greater than $2 trillion. It’s impossible for them to have such knowledge, of course.

And even if they had such knowledge, they’d have no reason to enforce the equality. And how could they? If the total amount of money in circulation is 2 trillion dollars, and if (value of all assets) is greater than (total amount of base money in circulation), who should take the hit? Are you going to deliberately sell your house for less than a buyer is willing to pay for it, just to help satisfy some abstract macroeconomic inequality? Or should some other home seller do so? This blatantly goes against people’s self-interest. Seriously, try to envision this: A buyer offers a house seller $200,000 for the house. The house seller says, “No, I think it’s only worth $150,000 and I won’t accept any more than that.” You see? This plan is not merely impractical; it’s completely unmoored from reality.

And what about honest differences of opinion? Back to that $6 vs. $7 example: What if I think houses are overvalued and stocks are correctly valued, and you think stocks are overvalued and houses are correctly valued? Which one of us gets to force the other to lower the price for which they’re willing to buy or sell an asset?

This is insane.

It’s insanity dreamed up by a hopeless dilettante. Moldbug should stick to something that he’s good at, if there is any such thing (writing software or whatever) and stay far, far away from areas outside his area of expertise. And unless and until he does that, people should stop giving any credence to him.

Reflections on the Currrent Situation

Something I wrote on January 9 but am just getting around to posting. I don’t think much has changed since then.

Weirdly, happily, I’m not in despair about the current situation.

Maybe I’m insane or maybe I’m still numb. Or maybe stoic masculine serenity somehow snuck up on me. Though my reaction when I’m stuck behind someone driving 45 mph in a 55 mph zone suggests otherwise. Maybe it’s just that I’m old enough to realize that nothing lasts forever, that “this too shall pass.” Indeed, that was my first post on this blog, which was simply a one-sentence quote of Bertolt Brecht: “Because things are the way they are, they cannot stay the way they are.” And this is especially true of things that set themselves against Gnon, which is the basic nature of the left.

Or maybe it’s that illusions are stripped away. After Trump’s surrender, we have learned that we cannot put too much trust in any one person. We learned this lesson at enormous cost. But those are the lessons you don’t forget. Indeed, when he was still sane, back in the GamerGate days, Vox Day repeatedly admonished people on the right not to have identifiable leaders, because that’s an easy attack point for the left. We must be decentralized and robust. And while being able to coordinate is very important, obviously, decentralization and robustness are too. (I wish I could say “I told you so” about this, but while I’ve thought this a lot in the last couple of months, I don’t think I ever said it on the record.)

It’s worth dwelling on this very important point. Especially since we now have no choice anyway. Any emergent leader who supports real democracy and freedom, from now on, is going to be very quickly neutralized by the left. He’ll get the Trump treatment, but faster. The left is now in power in the government, the media, the educational system, the Internet, and the culture in general. Obviously they are not going to simply allow someone like Trump (or what we thought Trump was) to rise to lead us again. We are going to have to fight the fight without a single leader, at least for the time being.

The black pill faction accepts this and whines, “Wah, we have to give up because we don’t have a leader.” If you are part of this faction: Bitch, please. Snap out of it and act like a man. Are you a right-wing man with a decent level of testosterone, or are you a whiny bitch-boy? Look, we all have pessimistic moments. I have them too. But you can’t take those moments and turn them into policy in your mind. You have to get past them. I’ve had moments since the night of November 3 when I was freaking out. I didn’t post at those times so I wouldn’t risk dragging others’ morale down.

It’s OK to have down moments. It’s normal. But you have to let them happen and get past them. Whether it’s fear or other negative emotions, the Litany Against Fear from Dune is apt on these kinds of topics:

“I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.”

Sometimes you have to let yourself experience a negative emotion so you can get past it.

As I wrote on December 23:

“I can’t tell whether Trump is going to do anything outside the system, even though it’s obviously too late to work within the system… If he concedes, don’t react emotionally. (I admit I’m going to have a hard time following my own advice here, but it’s OK to freak out for a couple of days. After that, time to think about how to proceed.)

Remember, if that happens it will just take us back to the scenario that most of the right has been expecting for decades.”

Remember that we never had any reason to realistically expect someone like what we thought Trump was to get into the White House. That was our crazy holy-shit-I-can-hardly-believe-it best-case scenario. Indeed, that it was so unbelievable is the whole reason he was able to win in 2016: The left couldn’t believe it either, so they didn’t do enough electoral fraud.

Don’t slit your freakin’ wrists, OK? If you want to keep your head down for the foreseeable future, that’s reasonable; it’s what I’m planning on doing.

And remember: The basic nature of the left is spitting in the face of Gnon. You can’t do that and get away with it. This a group of people whose moderate wing has the official position that men and women are equivalent! Their middle-of-the-road faction says that it’s good for women to act masculine and for men to act feminine (WTF?), and their extreme wing denies that men and women even exist! Nothing about this level of insanity is remotely sustainable. The left is always, even in their best-case scenario, in the position of a cartoon character who has walked over the edge of the cliff and hasn’t looked down yet. There is no such thing as a leftist regime that isn’t living on borrowed time. They know this too. You can see it in their eyes, even when they win. Have you ever known a leftist who was genuinely relaxed? I haven’t. At best, some of them act relaxed for show. (They do understand the value of propaganda… they have to, since they deny the value of reality.) The question is never whether they’ll fail; it’s only what the particular failure mode will be.

Well, this isn’t good

UPDATE: A couple of minutes after posting this I saw this concession video, which renders the speculations below moot. Among other things, he uses the phrase “new administration,” which is pretty goddamn unambiguous. Also, that’s not enough; he also has to throw his supporters who stormed the capitol over the side. What a contemptible end.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2021/01/so-thats-weird.html

*********

I’m trying to figure out what’s going on. It doesn’t look good. I see three possibilities, with some arguments for and against them:

  1. Trump cucked, exactly as he seemed to.
  2. Trump didn’t cuck, but was outmanuevered by the left, who have arrested him.
  3. Trump is playing 8-dimensional chess and some awesome kinetic stuff is going to happen soon. Ugh, I feel like kind of a whore even writing that, it’s such a stretch.

1. Trump cucked, exactly as he seemed to.

Supporting this view: He issued a deflated video telling everyone to go home. It’s not his words in that clip as much as his body language and tone of voice. He seems… done. Later he issued a tweet that finished, “Remember this day forever!” Those don’t sound like the words of a man whose message is, “We’re done for today boys; see you at the next battle!” They sound like the final words of a man before he rides off into the sunset.

He apparently issued a tweet though his social media director conceding the election, saying “there will be an orderly transition on January 20th.” People who are saying he didn’t really concede seem to be hung up on the fact that he didn’t use any form of the verb “concede.” Jesus, people.

By the way, if he did cuck, he is going to be Epsteined/Romanoved in short order, almost certainly before the end of this year. His tombstone should say,

Donald J. Trump, 1946 – 2021
Killed by normalcy bias

Against this view: Why didn’t he make an unambiguous statement like, “there will be an orderly transition to a Biden Administration on January 20th”?

Why was the statement from Trump’s social media guy Dan Scavino instead of Trump himself? Why not make an announcement on video or on TV? It’s not like the leftist media wouldn’t cover a concession by Trump! Why no official White House announcement? Instead we get an announcement that can be read as ambiguous by someone who wants to find ambiguity, and is issued by a source other than Trump. It’s all quite weird.

2. Trump didn’t cuck, but was outmaneuvered by the left, who have arrested him.

Supporting this view: Trump hasn’t been seen anywhere in person since yesterday, January 6. (If he has, and there is video with a reliable claim about the date and time, do let me know in the comments.)

And yesterday there was this announcement on the DoD website:

“Chairman Milley and I just spoke separately with the Vice President and with Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, Senator Schumer and Representative Hoyer about the situation at the U.S. Capitol. We have fully activated the D.C. National Guard to assist federal and local law enforcement as they work to peacefully address the situation. We are prepared to provide additional support as necessary and appropriate as requested by local authorities. Our people are sworn to defend the constitution and our democratic form of government and they will act accordingly.”

Note there’s nothing about Trump in that announcement. His absence is glaringly, pointedly, conspicuous. It’s so conspicuous it almost has to be intentional.

And his banning from Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram quells any questions about why he’s not posting. Because he was banned, you see! The real reason being that he’s under forced sedation in a windowless basement cell somewhere.

This is another case in which he is going to be Romanoved soon, though at least he’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that he tried.

Against this view: For this to have been pulled off, there would have to be an almost unbelievable amount of treason in the Secret Service: More than half of Secret Service agents would have to be traitors in on the plot. Or, only a select few, but someone was in a position to schedule their hours on duty to put them all on at the same time. That’s less implausible because it would only require one person for scheduling.

Also, in this case they have to hold him incommunicado for at least the next two weeks, until after Biden’s swearing-in ceremony. What’s their believable story for that?

3. Trump is playing 8-dimensional chess and some awesome kinetic stuff is going to happen soon.

Meh. But OK:

Supporting this view: He hasn’t said anything because it’s crucial to avoid any evidence that the Deep State could use to figure out where he is. Any communication could potentially be traced back.

He knows what happened to Epstein and there’s no way he’s stupid enough to miss that the left has the same plan lined up for him. He knows he has nothing to lose by fighting and he has been planning for this since at least Epstein’s murder.

Against this view: There is such a thing as normalcy bias; that’s why the phrase “normalcy bias” exists. And Trump, who was born in 1946, possibly cannot conceive of the idea of the United States of America actually falling to the hard left. It simply isn’t something that his brain can process.

If you had to bet your life, what would you bet? I’d bet on Occam’s Razor, that the whole thing is exactly what it seems to be: Trumped had a failure of brains and balls. He can’t see that we are in the process of a communist takeover, and he can’t allow himself to see that the only way to stop that now involves a lot of bodies dropping. It’s all just too scary and outside the world he knows for him to see it, to allow himself to see it.