There are not going to be any “Durham arrests”

“Durham’s investigation! Secret indictments! Mass arrests! Any day now! Aaaaaaaaannnnnnnnny day now!”

STOP THIS FUCKING BULLSHIT. We have been hearing this sort of bullshit for four years. How long does it take for you to learn?

Remember the “thousands of arrests from sealed indictments” that the Q crowd was expecting for Christmas 2017? For fuck’s sake, get a clue.

Just stop. There is not going to be a wave of mass arrests. You know this. We are going to have to defeat the anti-democracy totalitarian insurrectionists the hard and unpleasant way.

And that’s what we’ve been planning for anyway. Ever since it became clear that the left will start a civil war rather than let Trump have another four years. So, weird though it is to say it, a bloody, hard-fought civil war is simply business as usual. Or rather, business as planned.

At Jim’s blog the proprietor recently said,

“If a storm of top level arrests, it is on. If no top level arrests, we have a problem.”

Nah. If no top level arrests, things go as everyone has been expecting, civil war. Not fun, but not a surprise either: it’s what everyone (on both the left and right) who has been paying attention is expecting and planning for.

Mass arrests of leftists in our current political regime is an unthinkable event. It can’t happen. However, our current political regime is not long for this world. Sometime after November 3rd, and possibly not until after January 20th, mass arrests of someone will become not only thinkable but inevitable. There will be mass arrests of either Democrats or Republicans, and probably both.

In the meantime there is no chance that there will be a wave of mass arrests from Durham’s investigation. You know this already, dear reader, but sometimes it can firm up one’s focus to hear something said out loud. You’re welcome.

Continue planning as you were.

Power-Siezing Ideas vs. Governing Ideas

A recent exchange at Jim’s blog:

Stanon says:

“The most powerful ideas in history have gotten their power not from asking men to bow but to stand up. Not from subverting their natural power drive but by dovetailing with it.”

The Cominator says:

“Yes and no. Men want to have purpose and use masculine energy for that purpose, but men also want to be a part and submit to something greater than themselves.”

We need to distinguish between revolutionary ideologies and governing ideologies. Or if you like, ideologies that are useful for seizing power and ideologies that are useful for keeping power (what evil people care about) or for maintaining a well-ordered, successful nation (which is what decent people care about, but note this requires keeping power).

Marxism is the canonical example of a revolutionary/power-seizing ideology. It said, as I think revolutionary/power-seizing ideologies always do,

“Some bastards are attacking you; fight back against them!”

In Marxism the details were

“The capitalists are sucking your blood; fight back against them!”

But it could be anything. In the western world right now it’s

“White people are murdering you; fight back against them!”

Marxism is utterly brilliant as a power-seizing ideology. At communism’s height, it ruled over a third of the human race.

Of course, what works for seizing power is not necessarily what works for keeping power or creating a successful nation. Thus communism, while certainly the most successful power-seizing ideology in human history on the time scale of 75 years, didn’t get beyond 75 years. And once it started to collapse its collapse was breathtakingly fast. Boiled down to its essence, without the self-flattering bullshit, the official economic part of communist ideology (as opposed to the power-seizing part) was “We’ll grab all the capitalists’ stuff!” Obviously that’s not a recipe for long-term success.

Those of us trying to oppose the current leftist/SJW holiness spiral and replace it with something tolerable must keep the crucial distinction between revolutionary ideologies and governing ideologies in mind.

Our best revolutionary ideology is simple enough, since all we have to do is tell the truth: There is a large number of people who hate traditional western populations and are planning to get rid of us by various means.

A governing ideology must satisfy a lot of desiderata, obviously. But it cannot have “Some bastards are attacking you; fight back against them!” as a major component.* This is because it must provide a large stake in social stability to a majority of people. Fomenting civil war obviously won’t work.


* A governing ideology must explicitly warn against parasites, the power-mad, and holiness spirals. It must also explicitly warn against the “high-and-low against the middle” revolutionary strategy. But saying “Be watchful for these dangers” is not the same as saying, “We’re being attacked; start spraying bullets in the streets right now!!!”

Managing the Overton Window

Trump said something suboptimal about “Yay, legal immigration!” in his 2019 State of the Union speech. When I read it I said to myself, “That’s bad management of the Overton Window, Donald.” That may be a good way to look at it: Managing the Overton Window. No one person controls it, of course, but each person can influence it. Especially the President.

Indeed, it’s important to stretch the Overton Window in political debates, and not to try to just stay within the current Overton Window. The left won over the last half century by stretching the Overton Window, not by operating inside it. They won by saying things that seem insane today, and making them then debatable, then undeniable (e.g. if you want to keep your job) a decade later.

If we try to stay within the current Overton Window, while letting the left define the Overton Window, we will lose.

The left’s propaganda/rhetorical strategy is entirely different from ours. Ours is based on persuasion, on showing reality to people. Theirs is largely composed of various forms of compulsion. In a sense, the left doesn’t really have a propaganda strategy (other than outright lying), if by that you mean trying to convince people. Rather, they infiltrate the information-disseminating professions then start yelling in unison to indicate what the current party line is. Then they enforce it by e.g. trying to make unemployable anyone who deviates from it.

You can’t totally ignore the current Overton Window, of course: not even the left does that. But you must be mindful of the degree to which you can and must contribute to stretching it in your desired direction, as well as staying to a certain extent within it.

A major difference between us and the left, of course, is that they’re shouting insane things while we are shouting sane things.

The strategy of shouting insane things and then enforcing rhetorical compliance works well for the left because individial leftists are the kind of people who love to monitor what the herd’s leaders are saying and repeat it. They do this quite naturally. Thus NPCs, attack swarms, etc.

This is extremely effective for the left on the time scale of decades. But: it makes them vulnerable to holiness spiralling. Every individual leftist wants to make sure that he’s a little to the left of the leftist average to stay safe, but of course that’s not possible; thus the leftward spiral. This is the failure mode of leftism; it’s a major reason that leftism didn’t take over the world millennia ago.

I’m tempted to define leftism as power-hungry people engaging in holiness spiralling.

That is consistent with the memetic drift in the left over the last century. In the early 1900s and until the collapse of the USSR, the core idea of the “left” was socialism. Accusations of e.g. “racism” were just frosting. Now the core idea of the “left” is hating white people, and socialism is merely the frosting. Notice that in the 2016 and 2020 Democrat primary contests, the mainstream left energetically attacked Bernie Sanders and “Bernie Bros,” even though they were more (overtly) socialistic than the other Democrat contenders. That would have been unthinkable 40 years earlier. I imagine Sanders was surprised to find himself no longer protected by pas d’ennemis à gauche. “But I’m to the left of you!” one imagines him crying to the mainstream Dems. “I’m allowed to attack you, but you’re not allowed to attack me!” Poor Mr. Sanders. He failed to understand that socialism is no longer the defining feature of “the left.”

Red Pill in Reality, Part 2

(Part 1 is here.)

(1) Red Pill in Reality, Nice Guys Versus Jerks edition: They met on a dating app. Then he robbed a bank on their first date and forced her to be the getaway driver.

So boss. So very, very boss.

And you thought your worst first date story was bad.

A Massachusetts woman became an unexpected getaway driver after a man she met on a dating app robbed a bank on their first date.
Christopher Castillo, the unnamed woman’s would-be Robin Hood, plead guilty this week to armed robbery and three counts of assault and battery on a police officer — all committed on their first date on December 5, 2016 — according to the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office.
Castillo was sentenced to three years in state prison for the robbery, plus two years in the Bristol County House of Corrections for violently struggling against and spitting on police who tried to subdue him, according to the district attorney’s office.
The woman wasn’t charged — the “worst date ever” story was enough punishment.
It all started, the woman told police, when she picked up Castillo from his parents’ home in Chepachet, Rhode Island, and drove him 30 minutes east toward North Attleboro, Massachusetts. She said he drank wine in the passenger seat of her Nissan Maxima (which is also illegal, but he wasn’t charged for that one).
The two had never met in person before that fateful day in 2016, she told police. So why would she think anything was wrong when he told her to pull over as they approached a bank?
He got out of her car and left her there alone for a few minutes. Then, suddenly, he came running back, sweating with sunglasses, a hat, a gun and $1,000 cash in hand, the woman said.
“F**king go,” he told her.
She “panicked,” she told police, so she did as she was told.

(2) Red Pill in Reality, Hamster edition:

I don’t think I’ll ever forget the time an attractive woman said, in all seriousness, that she was different because she was really only attracted to tall, good-looking alpha males, who had a little bit, although not too much, of an edge to them. Yeah, that’s totally different from every other woman on the planet….

LOL. In a similar spirit to this.

(3) Red Pill in Reality, Social Proof edition:

Back in the 1970s, a pair of researchers conducted an experiment to examine the importance of having a physically attractive partner. Participants evaluated men who were either the boyfriend of, or unassociated with, a female; and the female was either attractive, or unattractive. Of the four conditions, the men with an attractive girlfriend were evaluated the most favorably. The men with the unattractive girlfriend were evaluated the least favorably.

From a social proof standpoint, it’s better to be unattached than to be attached to an unattractive woman.

(4) At Alf’s blog: Leftists dude’s girlfriend wonders why their sex is bad.

Spoiler alert: Because he’s an equalist:

His girlfriend of some years, who is also an aspiring social media content creator, has published a documentary: ‘my sex is broken‘, in which she, no joke, no irony, explores the grand mystery of why sex with her boyfriend just isn’t so good… a very honest analysis about the general dissatisfaction among feminist women.

‘Honest’ being a relative term: a woman is permanently in denial about what makes her love a man. And so it is with this documentary, which is essentially her ‘honestly’ wondering why her sex is bad, without ever getting to the crux of the question: that she doesn’t really love her boyfriend. The documentary is one big shit-test towards her boyfriend, a shit-test the boyfriend can’t pass, because being the emancipated left-wing prog that he is, he principally refuses to stop her from doing stupid shit. One can imagine their conversations: ‘babe I’m not sure this documentary is a good idea.’
‘But honey I just need to express myself! These are my feelings, I feel like I must do this. You support me right?’
‘… Right.’

Poor guy.

(5) Red Pill in Reality, Hamster Redux.

Two articles: (A) A sane one, from McCall’s magazine, 1958, “129 Ways to Get a Husband.”
and
(B) A lame attempt to fisk it in 2018, with wince-inducing results. Surprise! The author of this “Imma strong woman I don’t need no man!” piece writes a column for Psychology Today called Living Single, which says it all. (There’s a photo of her at the link if you’re curious. Summary: No surprises there.)

While the original article has some strange pieces of advice, most of it is reasonable.

A couple of mystifying/amusing ones:
#42, “If you’re at a resort have the bell boy page you.” What? How is that going to lead to romance? They don’t explain.
And #103: “Learn to play poker.” Um… Why?

But it’s also full of good advice to women, e.g.,
#52: “Wear high heels most of the time – they’re sexier!” Damn right! We need to pass a law about this.
And #60: “Go on a diet if you need to.” Duh.

What’s sad is the sour-grapes advice from the author of the 2018 piece. Any young woman who follows this advice is dooming herself to a life of childlessness and addiction to wine and anti-depressants.

E.g. the original article says,

18. Tell your friends that you are interested in getting married. Don’t keep it a secret.

To which the 2018 “Imma strong woman!” doofus responds,

“Tell your friends you have no interest whatsoever in getting married! Don’t keep it a secret. Tell your mother. Tell all your other relatives. Tell all the random people you meet on the street. Declare it on social media.”

The most tragic response is to this:

12. Become a nurse or airline stewardess – they have very high marriage rates.

Doofus responds,

“Become a person who thinks for herself. They have very high rates of living the life that works for them, rather than the life everyone tells them they should want.”

This is idiotic. First of all, women are not constantly told that they should get married in our culture; they’re constantly told that they should not get married, by the bitter old feminists who have taken over our popular culture.

Second, and more importantly, the advice is tragically misguided— most people, men and women, want to pair up, and in any case refusing to do something because it’s the conventional wisdom is just as stupid as doing something because it’s the conventional wisdom. They are two sides of the same idiotic coin, paying attention to the crowd.

(6) Red Pill in Reality, Electroshock Therapy for the Blue-Pilled edition.

A quarter of straight porn searches by women are for videos featuring violence against their own sex… While men still search for significantly more porn than women, search rates for these more extreme types of sexual content are at least twice as common among women than men.

Those statistics make for fairly surprising reading, but are the facts Dr Seth Stephens- Davidowitz, a former Google data scientist, discovered when he was given complete access to PornHub’s search and views data for his upcoming book. “If there is a genre of porn in which violence is perpetrated against a woman, my analysis of the data shows that it almost always appeals disproportionately to women,” he writes.

(7) Red Pill in Reality, Empathy by Brute Force edition.
(Via John C. Wright)

A woman named Ann Akana goes bi and develops sympathy for guys. My favorite part starts at the 1:45 mark: She and another “bi” chick are returning from a date and the other one says, at the door to her apartment, “Do you wanna come in and make out?” Akana says “Yes,” and they go inside and proceed to do nothing but talk for hours, to her great frustration. Why? Because each one was expecting the other one to make the first move, obviously. Based on a lifetime of habit, each one was thinking, “I’m the girl, so the other person should make the first physical move.” Neither one apparently had the wit to realize the other one was thinking the same thing. Duh! One would think this incredibly obvious, but I guess not to everyone. Akana goes home at 3:00 am, after no sexyfun.

She gets a lot of flak in the comments about other episodes she talks about, but I think it’s unwarranted. At least she’s open-minded enough to sympathize with guys when, e.g., she’s expected to pay for a date with a girl.

Miscellany 19: Liberal Hack Edition

(1) Video: Arizona Senator Martha McSally calls CNN “reporter” a “liberal hack” to his face on camera. It’s around the 0:45 mark in the linked vid. I originally saw this clip at RazorFist/Rageaholic (lost that link) and he comments that that moment made him want to propose marriage. That was exactly what I blurted when I saw the clip.
Her: “Manu, you’re a liberal hack. I’m not going to talk to you.”
Me: “Marry me!”
McSally is now selling “liberal hack” T-shirts, bless her.

(2) Speaking of leftist agitprop operatives, here’s a practical definition of chutzpah: Greg Sargent of the Washington Post:

“Trump and his propagandists are actively trying to engineer violent civil conflict, by signaling to white Americans that they are under siege in a race war that they’re losing.”

Unbelievable. A lefty reporter, in the current environment, claiming Trump is stirring up civil conflict? The brazenness of leftist lying really is unlimited.

(3) Starting in early June there was a burst of people arriving at my site from searches involving the idea of a second American civil war. While most search engines now mask the search terms that lead people to your site, not all of them do. There have been occasional searches on this theme over the years, but only two or three per year. Check out the recent ones:

June 7: 1 hit from the search term second american civil war.
On June 8 there were two such terms, the 2nd civil war has started, which generated 4 hits, and possibility of a second american civil war, which generated 1 hit.
June 10: second american civil war is starting.
Jun 11: what a second us civil war would look like 2020
June 12: 2nd american civil war 2020
June 23: the 2nd civil war has started
June 24: will the left start a civil war
June 30: civil war 2020
July 1: when will the left start civilwar (sic)
July 5: can the left win the civil war
July 14: Two, time to give the left war tehy want (sic) and is the united states heading for a civil war

People can see what’s happening.

(4) After the riots of late May through (so far) mid-July, the left is freaking out about Trump winning the November election. An additional reason is the Congressional elections. Now that everyone paying attention knows that Democrats are the party of literally burning buildings down, the Dems’ chances of re-taking the Senate just got much lower, and their chance of losing the House got a lot higher. No wonder they’re freaking out!

I pray that every soccer Mom in the U.S.A. sees Minneapolis and all those other cities burning.

(5) I wonder if social media might, in the last analysis, be good for stopping the holiness spiral short of an all-out civil war. The reason is that it makes the holiness spiral accelerate so fast that normies can’t help but notice.

Even people on the left are beginning to notice, and yelp about it. E.g. the petition that Noam Chomsky et al recently signed, Matt Taibbi’s recent article (https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-left-is-now-the-right), etc.

Nah, pipe dream. Holiness spirals are so inherently unstable by their very nature that they can’t really stop, short of being forced to stop by externally-imposed force. But it is nice that even the “old” brand of leftists like Chomsky – himself pretty damn extreme – are starting to wish the brakes could be applied. That cannot hurt, and maybe it will help.

(6) It’s a notable fact that the right is now the intellectual leading edge of the western world. The left is doing nothing, intellectually, but trying to come up with new ways of calling people “racist” (…sexist, this-aphobe, that-aphobe, etc.). While the right has come up with, to name just a couple, the concepts of holiness spirals, shit-testing (as a concept that is used in political thinking), hypergamy (ditto), Chesterton’s fence (ditto), etc. Intellectually, the left has nothing but “White people are horrible!” and lamely trying to come up with new ways of saying that. The Right is where all the energy, intelligence, intellectual openness, and sheer intellectual alive-ness are. People on the right are not just fighters. We’re intellectually alive and curious and genuinely interested in understanding things. That never existed on the left; it was always just another lie (“left-wing intellectuals”), which they used to help them consolidate power in the universities.

(7) Missouri: Prosecutor Kim Gardner’s Office Tampered With Evidence to Charge The McCloskey’s With Crimes. The handgun the woman was holding was not operative, thus under Missouri law preventing them from charging her with “felonious threat” or whatever. So the prosecutor’s office re-assembled the gun so it would be operative, so they could charge them with a felony. Holy fuck.

In response to being called out for falsifying evidence, the (black) prosecutor and her defenders called the people calling it out “racist.”

President Trump has been following this case. He should send federal marshalls in to arrest her for conspiracy to deprive people of their civil rights, which is a felony. He really should do this. It’s a perfect case for this kind of action. What’s the media going to do to shield her, defend evidence tampering? (Of course they will, but not effectively.) If nothing else the light his tweets shine on it will prevent her from getting away with it. But that’s way too little in response to the crime. And when will we ever get another case this clear?

(8) Let’s end on a couple of cheery notes:

July 23, 2020: Twitter ad revenue plummets by 23%:

Per CNN:

Twitter (TWTR) is actively exploring additional ways to make money from its users, including by considering a subscription model, CEO Jack Dorsey said Thursday. The move comes as Twitter suffers a sharp decline in its core advertising business.

“You will likely see some tests this year” of various approaches, Dorsey told analysts on an investor call held to discuss the company’s second quarter earnings results. Dorsey said he has “a really high bar for when we would ask consumers to pay for aspects of Twitter,” but confirmed that the company is seeking to diversify its sources of revenue…

Twitter reported second-quarter ad revenues of $562 million, a 23% decrease compared to the same quarter a year ago.

Quarterly ad revenue of $562 million seems nice, but the 23% drop, and other info they have, obviously is making them alarmed, or they wouldn’t consider the subscription model, a desperate move for a social media company.

Ace comments: “Most of the country… remains captive in their own homes with only the internet for diversion, and Twitter still can’t sell ads? LOL.”

(9) The ideal woman, based on porn data:

Based on [porn website] xHamster’s survey of 50,000 respondents from over 150 countries, Cosmopolitan Magazine reported in May 2019 that “the ideal dream woman is a 25-year-old, 5’5”, Eurasian, bisexual woman named ‘Shy Yume.’” This supposed “ideal” woman has blue eyes, straight, dark, long hair, an “average” body size, “fully shaved” genitals, and is “not a feminist.”

Sounds pretty fucking awesome to me, though I’d go a couple of years younger than 25. How about 20. And who cares what her name is?

Here’s a fitting celebrity. Can you identify her?

MeganFox-AngelinaJolie

It’s actually a digital amalgamation of Megan Fox and Angelina Jolie.

Another Day, Another Spew of Leftist Projection

A spew of projection from SJW lefty Scott Aaronson.

Aaronson discusses Will He Go?, a book by “legal scholar” Lawrence Douglas. Douglas, being a projecting leftist, kvetches about the bizarre scenario of Trump losing in November 2020, but not admitting that he has lost and trying to stay in the White House. Plainly this is just the usual projection, after the left refused to accept the outcome of 2016. Now they are trying the usual DARVO strategy of accusing the other side of what they’re doing.

DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. It is behavior typically used by sociopaths and – surprise! – often used by the left. In a breathtaking piece of meta-DARVO, the Wikipedia article on DARVO accuses Trump of engaging in DARVO. This after the left tried to oust him in a dictatorial anti-democratic coup, while accusing Trump of being dictatorial. That is, the Wikipedia article on DARVO actually engages in DARVO. We need to include accusations of DARVO as part of standard DARVO tactics.

Douglas’s book seems to be an attempt to prepare the battlespace for the left’s upcoming electoral fraud, and Trump’s calling out of the same and refusing to leave the White House until after an honest (or as close as we can get to honest) recount. Douglas, like Biden and other leftists, wants to seed people’s minds with the prior belief that Trump will be the dishonest player here.

One might ask leftists, “Why not just adopt political positions that the majority of people don’t find abhorrent, so your side has a non-trivial chance of winning?” But such questions are pointless with the left. Among other things, they can’t stop even if they wanted to because they’re caught up in a severe holiness spiral.

Aaronson:

“Suppose that, as this president’s deepest (and perhaps only) principle, he never backs down, never apologizes, never acknowledges any inconvenient fact, and never accepts the legitimacy of any contest that he loses”

An absolute BLAST of projection. The left lost in 2016 and is still trying to undo that election. They spread rank lies about the President and Russia. They involved a foreign intelligence operative (Christopher Steele) while accusing Trump of enlisting foreign intelligence services. They tried to remove him from office by impeachment, with the accusation that he’d committed a Ukrainian crime that his Democratic opponent Biden actually committed, having explicitly bragged about it on video.

Aaronson: “Suppose that, during the final presidential debate, he pointedly refuses to promise to respect the election outcome if he loses—a first in American history.”

For fuck’s sake! The left refused to accept the 2016 outcome. What is the point of such blatant lies, Aaronson? Do you really believe that no one remembers the “It was Russia!” lies and the attempt to oust Trump based on those lies? Jesus, how short-memoried do you think people are? Let’s review: The “Russia” story, based on works of fiction like the Steele fantasy (“dossier”) was used by the FBI, a rogue intelligence service, to try to overthrow the legitimately-elected government of the United States of America by means of fabricated data. It really is terrifying that they could attempt such treasonous insurrection and not one of them has been executed, or seems likely to be executed, for treason.

And after that attempted coup, which went on for years, Aaronson has the gall to yap about Trump possibly refusing “to respect the election outcome if he loses—a first in American history.”

“Douglas asks: is America’s Constitutional machinery up to a challenge that it’s never yet faced, of a president who accepts democracy itself as legitimate only when he wins?”

The mind boggles at the brazenness of the projection, gaslighting, and DARVO here.

“So suppose Trump has a slight edge on election night, Fox News calls the race for him, but then an avalanche of absentee or provisional ballots shift things in Biden’s favor over the following week. Can you imagine Trump or his supporters accepting the latter?”

Yeah, it’s funny how “those extra ballots we just found” always give the Democrat the victory, isn’t it? What a remarkable coincidence!

“Or suppose that, on election day, Russian hackers cut off electricity or voter registration databases in Philadelphia or Detroit, via computer systems that we know they already broke into and that remain exposed (!).”

Wow. It only takes Aaronson a couple of paragraphs to go from “ZOMG IT’S COMPLETELY FASCIST TO QUESTION AN ELECTION’S LEGITIMACY!” to “What if the election isn’t legitimate?!” Give leftists this: They’re certainly… mentally flexible.

“Trump has already told his followers that voting by mail is a scam to be fiercely opposed, never mind that he uses it himself.” Be serious. George W. Bush got out of jury duty when he was President, because the President’s time is too valuable to spend on that sort of thing. Presidents must be exempted from some rules.

“So again: imagine if mail-in ballots overturn what looked like a Trump win on election night.”

That is indeed a likely scenario, because the left does not accept democratic outcomes when they don’t win. It’s quite plausible that Trump will win by X votes spread across several key states, then in the next several days those states will just happen to “find” 1.2X votes for Biden. We all know this is a pretty likely outcome, which is of course exactly why Douglas and Aaronson are trying to pre-frame it as proving Trump’s tyranny, instead of the left’s tyranny.

“Douglas doesn’t mention, because it happened too recently, the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests [arson, murder, vandalism, looting]… But assuming the protests continue through the fall, they’ll of course give the Trumpists even more pretexts to meddle with the election, in the name of imposing ‘order.’”

“Pretexts,” unbelievable. “France nukes Boston: Watch out for rabid conservatives trying to use this as a pretext for war with France.”

“…Trump’s frequent glorifications of violence, and his heavily armed base.” Which side is burning down buildings and killing people?

Aaronson then says:

“Five years ago, thousands of woke activists shamed me for writing about my teenage experiences on this blog, a few even calling for an end to my career. Especially if those activists emerge victorious from a turbulent 2020—as I hope they will—I expect that they’ll come for me again.”

Scott Aaronson loves Big Brother. I would have thought the psychology of that was pure fiction, invented by Orwell for 1984, but I guess it’s real. Ugh, disgustingly cowardly. On the other hand, it takes out some of our enemies, who are basically announcing, “I’m a soft target!” to people who are itching to take them down. One of the satisfactions of the last few years has been watching the accelerating tendency of the left to eat its own.

George F. Will’s Dementia Increasingly Hilarious

You have to read this hilarious thing in the Washington Post to believe it. In his first sentence, Will calls President Trump the “Crybaby-in-Chief.” In his next paragraph he accuses Trump of a “coarsening of public discourse.”

It gets better. After that Will scolds Republicans in the Senate for their “Vichyite collaboration” with Trump, thus comparing them to France’s Nazi collaborationist regime during World War II, and thus calling Trump Hitler.

Having called Trump Hitler and the Senate Vichy collaborationists, Will goes on to call Trump “unhinged.” Hey, George, someone in this scenario is unhinged, and it’s not Trump. Fun game: see if you can figure out who!

And in a demonstration that moving left politically requires one to have one’s sense of irony removed, Will says, “The nation’s downward spiral into acrimony… has had many causes,” among them, perhaps, calling people you disagree with Nazis.

But wait, there’s more!

The person voters hired in 2016 to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” stood on July 28, 2017, in front of uniformed police and urged them “please don’t be too nice” when handling suspected offenders. His hope was fulfilled for 8 minutes and 46 seconds on Minneapolis pavement.

LOL. Trump said, “don’t be too nice”… and a mere three years later, George Floyd was killed! Draw the line from A to B, man!

As a side note, this “essay,” if one can call it that, is a good example of the difference between style and substance. All the old Will style from the 1980s is here… well, except for cool understatement, obviously. The vocabulary, the references to Shakespeare and T.S. Eliot, etc. are present. But the substance— reasoned analysis— is gone, completely gone. All that’s left is the vaporous spew of a bitter old man who has forgotten the proper dosage on his medications.

President Trump drives his enemies insane. I usually identify as religiously agnostic, but the last few years tend to make me think God exists and is on Trump’s side. After all, Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad… and the anti-Trump crowd is bonkers.

What’s Going on with the Left?

Dumbass
“But summoning demons seemed like such a good idea!”

1. Partly – but only partly – there’s a unified plan: Attack Trump with a Xanatos Gambit; he’s either “weak and falling” or a “tyrannical dictator.” So far Trump has threaded this needle very well.

2. Another major factor is that the left’s thugs are out of control because they’re the kind of people who just like breaking stuff and beating people. Antifa is the obvious example here. They don’t much care who they attack, but the softer the target the better. Leftist mobs’ most recent victim as of this writing is a gay Democrat State Senator in Wisconsin. He was put in the hospital by a mob of thugs who he had thought, up to that moment, were “on his side.”

3. Another major factor is that they’re holiness spiraling.

4. What we haven’t seen yet, but may start to see soon, is the haute left fighting each other. Leftists know they can’t trust each other, so highly-positioned leftists will be very tempted to sort some factional stuff out now, in case they actually win against Trump. The internal power struggle has very high stakes, since lefties know they’ll kill each other for power, as they always have done for the last century. Indeed, they’ve been doing it since the French Revolution of the late 1700s, which is the origin of the saying “The Revolution eats its children.”

It all adds up to exactly what one would expect it to add up to: Increasing violence in general, and an amount of left-on-left violence in particular that must be surprising to someone who doesn’t know the history of the left.

Why not just work together? Remember, the entire point of leftism is betrayal of the broader group. And this is a personality type, not an ideology. Individual leftists don’t cooperate with broader leftism any more than they cooperate with the broader nation. (Leftist ideologies are just tacked-on epiphenomena that are invented to justify betrayal and smash-and-grab. No one believes the ideologies, least of all leftists.)

This is why leftism is most effective when it doesn’t require individual leftists to sacrifice for the leftist common goals. For example, leftist media narratives are pretty consistent across newspapers and networks because it doesn’t cost an individual leftist “journalist” anything to coordinate with other leftists.

Leftists are dangerous to everyone, but at least as dangerous to each other, especially once there is something big at stake like dictatorial power. Betrayers can’t work together.

If you’re an “elite” leftist, why not just exit the situation? Why not just quit politics, announce through channels to your fellow powerful leftists that you’re quitting politics, and move to another country to retire? That won’t work for at least two reasons:

(1) Your fellow leftists won’t believe that you’re quitting, because all leftists are liars and all leftists know that all leftists are liars. A false quitting announcement is exactly the sort of ruse a leftist would use to put his enemies off guard. In fact, Al Gore did exactly this the night of the 2000 presidential election, calling Bush to say he had conceded, while actually assembling his legal team to challenge the outcome while the Bush team was relaxing and celebrating.

(2) Moving to another country provides no safety, since whoever controls the US government reaches everywhere. You probably don’t know what happened to Leon Trotsky after the Soviet Revolution, because the left has decided it’s an inconvenient bit of history and memory-holed it. Short version: Maneuvered out of power by Stalin, Trotsky hopped from country to country, eventually ending up in Mexico. Stalin dispatched an assassin, who found Trotsky and killed him by chopping him through the skull with an ice axe.

Incidents like this are typical in 20th century leftist revolutions. Leftists are constantly riven by factionalism and killing each other. And leftists know it. You may not have known about Trotsky and similar incidents, but hard leftists study revolutions – they know. Their knowing it makes the situation even worse for them: Even if there’s a leftist who has no inclination to murder, he has to, pre-emptively, since he strongly suspects the other leftists will try to murder him. There is no honor among thieves… let alone murderers.

Look at this Reservoir Dogs photo from a previous post of mine:

ReservoirDogs
Is this situation game-theoretically stable?

If you’re in that situation and you know the other guy is a killer, you’d better shoot first.

I originally used that pic to illustrate the situation between Trump and the left. But this is also the situation powerful leftists now find themselves in with respect to each other.

(And Trump has been very good at resisting the left’s attempts to bait him into military action that they can use for propaganda purposes. That is, they are shooting at him, and have been for years, but he has been wearing a bullet-proof vest and dodging their bullets, as their attacks make their true nature obvious to more and more Americans.)

I do not think powerful leftists have started killing each other yet – if so, they’ve kept it out of the news – but they must be heading in that direction. (Update: How could I have forgotten Epstein?!) Antifa attacking the home of the leftist mayor of Olympia Washington, not to mention kicking the Democratic government of Seattle out of Seattle’s capitol area, are just a couple of recent examples. Already each “elite” leftist must be casting suspicious glances at other “elite” leftists around him, wondering who’s going to strike at whom first. “Will I be a target?” he wonders. And maybe starts thinking he’d better strike before he is stricken. Even as you read this, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and George Soros are wondering about each other…