While one should not treat the claim that the owner of an applecart is oppressing the proletariat, causing global warming, or whatever, as sincerely held, nor suppose they give a tinker’s dam about the sufferings of the proletariat or the temperature of the earth, one does need to take seriously what their story implies about what apple cart they are coordinating to knock over, and what mob they are assembling to knock it over.
These are not individual conflicts, Stalin versus Trotsky, but struggles over Schelling points for group coordination.
Trotsky was a purer communist than Stalin, because his communism was unconstrained by practical economic considerations. Since there had been repeated cycles of the ever lefter grabbing power from the insufficiently left, his purity was likely to result in him grabbing power from Stalin, which was undoubtedly the real motive behind such lunatic purity and the real reason for Stalin crushing the Trots – but such purity was likely to result in someone grabbing power from Stalin, regardless of what happened to Trotsky. The ideas, rather than Trotsky himself, were the threat.
Ideas matter. And they still matter even when they should not be taken seriously. They may not be the real motives for the left’s actions, but they are the real mechanism for left coordination to take action.
The details of Trotsky’s superior purity are irrelevant, uninteresting, hypocritical, and not sincerely held. And in this sense, it would be pointless to pay attention to the ideological argument. But the argument was real enough regardless. Stalin was impure, because concerned with practical consequences. His reasoning that Trotskyism was “objectively fascist” was that it was likely to have stupid and disastrous practical consequences that the fascists would be happy about.
Consider the question, “Are internal power struggles among leftists about ideology?” As with Hofstadter’s Godel, Escher, Bach, the correct answer to this question is not “Yes” or “No” but “Mu.”
The left’s attitude toward ideas is on the whole one of brutally amoral cynicism. Yet they can take conflicts over ideological questions very seriously indeed. This is because the stakes are often life and death. If you don’t already know, look up what happened to Robespierre and Trotsky. (I could tell you, but it will have more impact if you discover it yourself.) It is not only that the “ideas” are used as weapons to justify taking power, killing people, etc. They are also used as coordination mechanisms to settle on just who is going to be attacked in the first place.
The particular ideology the left coordinates on determines who is going to be attacked, and at the same time, why they are going to be attacked. In fact the Why determines the Who: If “racism” is the big problem, then it’s whites who are to be attacked; if pollution is the problem, then corporations. If “left deviationists,” then Trotsky. Etc.
The ideologies are both the terrain on which the ideological battle is fought and the weapons with which it is fought. They are at the same time the prize for which such battles are fought, since the winner of the ideological battle has won the power to coordinate and direct violence.
So again: “Are internal power struggles among leftists about ideology?” From a behavioral empiricist point of view, all that is going on is that evil people are engaging in gang war, both against targets in the broader society and against each other. But because coordination is all-important in war, an immense amount of energy is devoted to proving that one’s own gang has the correct ideology and opposing gangs are incorrect. It must be so, because the stakes are life and death.
Thus the apparent paradox:
Leftists, who are utterly cynical in terms of taking ideas seriously, treat ideas with the seriousness of a gutter knife fight.
Boston Pride, a group advocating for the LGBTQIA+ agenda, acknowledged systemic racism within its own organization and disbanded.
The board of directors released a statement explaining the reasons for their disbanding…
“It is clear to us that our community needs and wants change without the involvement of Boston Pride. We have heard the concerns of the QTBIPOC community and others. We care too much to stand in the way,” the statement continued.
“Therefore, Boston Pride is dissolving,” they added. “There will be no further events or programming planned, and the board is taking steps to close down the organization.”
The Dalai Lama has sparked controversy after he once again defended White nationalism. [Eye roll.] The elderly monk agreed with the statement that, “white people have a right to exist in their own countries.” Explaining himself, he stated, “I do not think a world without white people would be complete. We should celebrate the whole world’s diversity and that of course means nations being their own. I do not think a France without the French would be a good thing, but completely the opposite. I love all people.”
Going on, he stated that, “I can understand the sadness and despair of Europeans and Americans who worry about losing their countries. Immigrants should return to their own countries, especially those who are from safe places. When I travel to Berlin, I wonder, where are the Germans? I weep for what they have lost.”
(6) The three suspected shooters in this mass shooting are all black. Three people were murdered and 14 more were injured. For some reason, there is no front-page coverage of this in the national media. Huh.
For those who will yawn and say, “More leftist hypocrisy, so what?” the response is, Yeah, you may already know that, but somewhere out there are a fuck-ton of 18-year-olds whose political beliefs are just starting to form, and who don’t know it yet. The more we mention this sort of thing, the more those youngsters will happen upon it. One doesn’t call out leftist hypocrisy to shame leftists into stopping the hypocrisy. (As if.) One calls out leftist hypocrisy to draw it to the attention of those whose political beliefs haven’t jelled yet.
(7) “Isolated.” A ton of leftist rhetoric involves this as some sort of “threat.” That reveals what they fear. The latest example as of this writing in 2022 is Vladimir Putin, but there are tons of examples, e.g. Britain during the Brexit debates, etc.
“In candid interviews and fly-on-the-wall footage captured by director Amanda Micheli in the summer of 2019, [Jennifer] Lopez tries to keep mum about speculation she’s the “front-runner” to headline the [Superbowl] halftime show. So when the announcement comes that September she’ll be joined by Shakira, Lopez’s team calls it a slight against both women, suggesting that the NFL doesn’t believe Latinas can command the world’s biggest stage solo.”
You cannot appease the woke. Putting not one but two Latinas onstage didn’t quell the accusations of being anti-Latina. And putting three, or three hundred, wouldn’t have done so either. The Left cannot be appeased. It can only be defeated.
Leftism is weaponized envy, right? It’s all about knocking over applecarts to gather other people’s apples. Well, there are always going to be people with a lot more apples than the rest of us, and those without so many apples are going to envy and resent them for it. Leftism taps into this power. It’s not just a set of memes that happened to be lying around when the holiness spiral started; it’s a set of memes that justifies and harnesses envy on a mass scale. It’s an extremely powerful and well-adapted memeplex, a miracle of evolution; only the great world religions come close.
We like to say we’re the people who face reality in all its harshness; we try to act with the will of Gnon, rather than against it. Well, Gnon says that Leftist egalitarian nonsense is a really good way to organize and motivate large numbers of people so you can seize power, and nobody has ever found a way to beat it. Nobody out here in NRx land has looked that forbidden eldritch truth in the face.
True. But Gnon—that is, observed reality—also tells us that leftism is not a way to keep power once you’ve gotten it, because “betray and backstab everybody else” is not a tenable grounding for a cohesive ruling elite. Leftism always fails because you can’t create cohesion based on an ideology of “Fuck cohesion.” Cf. the fates of Robespierre, Trotsky, etc.
This is not to deny the real truth and force of Contaminated NEET’s points. It is true, as he says, that leftism is “an extremely powerful and well-adapted memeplex, a miracle of [memetic] evolution.”
But while leftism is an impressively highly evolved memeplex for taking power, it is only for taking power; it can’t hold on to it on significant timescales. And there is no danger that leftists, having seized power, will then switch to an ideology of loyalty and actually practice what they preach, because leftism is primarily a personality type, not an ideology. “But wait!” you cry. “Doesn’t that contradict everything you’ve been saying about what an impressively evolved memeplex leftism is?” No, because the memeplex is only an excrescence of the personality type. Leftists couldn’t change what they are even if they wanted to. And if they could see the benefits of mutual loyalty, they wouldn’t be leftists in the first place.
But just letting leftists take power and waiting them out while they destroy themselves is not a good strategy, since they have a tendency to destroy everything else too. They slaughter people by the millions when they can, as the history of the twentieth century attests.
The leftist delight in genocide is especially chilling with respect to my nation, the USA, since our defining characteristic is that we do everything big.
So we are in world in which genocidal maniacs are more than halfway to absolute power, and just waiting them out isn’t really a good plan. Can we do better? Hmm.
I don’t think anyone has found a reliable, replicable way to beat leftism before it takes absolute power. To be sure, leftism collapses all the time, from its own insane unworkability, because “Fuck loyalty” is not an ideology that can sustain loyalty, “Kill people with stuff and take all their stuff” is not a long-run workable economic system, etc. But no one that I know of has ever actually beaten leftism before it takes total power— in a systematic, replicable way— as opposed to just waiting until it wins and then dies off due to its own unworkability. Perhaps this has happened and we don’t know about it precisely because it creates historical epochs with normal human society instead of leftism. We need to go digging into history to see if this has happened. Otherwise, we need to find a way to do it.
We’re just going to have to be the first, folks. No one ever walked on the moon until people walked on the moon. Let it be said, decades from now, that no one ever found a way to defeat the left before they took absolute power, until some people defeated the left before they took absolute power.
A major problem is that the lies of leftism— like “We just want to liberate everybody; we believe in freedom”— are not obviously lies until the left is in power, when they enslave everyone, and then it’s too late. We need, among other things, a way to teach every kid the actual historical record of leftism, that when they’re in power they enslave, torture, imprison, and mass-murder enormous numbers of people. And we have to do this in face of two opposing facts: One, leftists are experts at infiltrating institutions like educational institutions, so they simply squelch any attempt to teach children the horrors of leftism. Two, most people find it difficult to believe in the existence of pathological liars. The idea that someone like Noam Chomsky would bald-facedly deny the murders of the Khmer Rouge regime, even though he knew that happened, is not in most people’s headspace. Again and again the lying nature of leftists must be rubbed in people’s faces.
How can we do this? That’s one of the most important questions to be answered. We need to spread truth in the teeth of the fact that leftists are instinctive pathological liars and instinctive infiltrators, and they are instinctive censors; they have no compunctions about silencing those who would expose their plans.
Barring that, we’ll have to basically become preppers and try the “wait it out” strategy, for lack of an alternative.
The Dirty Girls Social Club, by Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, published in 2003. Fair warning: This is mostly just me venting at the identity politics bait-and-switch that is this “novel.”
Aw, man, I had such high hopes for this one based on the first few pages. Classic female chunks of cheese all over the place (details to follow). Then the estrogen-infused cheese disappears. Worse, it becomes a politically correct race-sex-LBGTQ tract. With no plot, not even a pretend plot. Not even a gesture in the direction of faking an interest in thinking about the possibility of coming up with a plot. Sigh. Well, at least I got this for just 50 cents at a local library book sale. If I’d paid full price for this I’d be pissed. I mean, the title, “The Dirty Girls Social Club,” come on! That’s purposefully designed to trick 25-year-old chicks into buying it, expecting a lot of graphic sex, just so they can be conned into reading the author’s political complaints.
And it started so promisingly! Here’s what I’d written when I was a few pages in:
A “novel” about six “Latina” chicks living in Boston. They call themselves “sucias,” which we’re told means “dirty girls.” Each chapter is narrated by a different chick. At least judging by the first chapter there’s a lot of PC whining about being Hispanic in the US, which I am mostly going to try to ignore. But some of it is bound up with the author’s standard-mold female drama queenery, attention-whoring, and humble-bragging, so it’s impossible to avoid all of it. I hope that later chapters, narrated by other characters, will dial this the fuck down or it’s going to get really old really fast.
(Boy, was that hope dashed.)
But judging from the first 3 pages, this is going to be great as far as the female psychology stuff goes. The narrator of the first chapter is one Lauren Fernandez. In a horribly violent act of cultural genocide, I am omitting the accent mark over that last letter a. (I’m tempted to include an umlaut over one of the consonants, like Spinal Tap.) She bemoans her excessively dramatic life in classic female drama queen fashion – in particular the fact that her boyfriend is cheating on her – does a humblebrag about a guy at the bar checking her out even though she describes herself as “gross,” and obsesses about her fingernails and her variable clothing sizes, thus confirming that if men portrayed women as being half as obsessed with clothing and personal grooming as they actually are, feminists would go into tachycardia. She then returns to the fact that the men in her life all cheat on her. Complete with the standard excuse-making and denial of responsibility: “I don’t pick them, exactly. They find me, with that whacked radar…” All this within the first two pages! You can see why I had high hopes for this one.
She’s a reporter, because of course she is. It had to be either that or lawyer. Assuming that another one of the “dirty girls” is a lawyer, what do the other four do? Can’t wait to find out! My guess as of page 5: One of them does something in education, one works for a charity, and one has some sort of “high-pressure” corporate job. That leaves one for government, maybe “social work” of some kind. LATER: Not one but two “journalists”! And one professional musician: how could I have forgotten “rock star”?
P.6: More PC whining about how hard it is being a non-white chick. Complains that when she doesn’t do her job, a white man dares to note that fact:
“I’m always early. It’s the reporter training—come late, lose the story. Lose the story, risk having some envious and mediocre white guy in the newsroom accuse you of not deserving your job.” Can you believe that? Some white guy might say I don’t deserve my job just because I didn’t do my job! The nerve! I’m a non-white woman! I deserve to keep my job even if I don’t do it! Grr. Talk about entitlement mentality! I’m noting this because it’s relevant on the very next page, so put it in your short term memory.
P. 7: In case you didn’t get the drama queenery a couple of pages ago: “Men like Ed [her boyfriend] find me, because they smell the hidden truth of Lauren on the wind: I hate myself because no one else has ever bothered to love me.” Leaping cats! How do people who are so un-serious take themselves so seriously? You can practically see her striking a pose. The back of one hand presses against her forehead as she slumps to the ground in a faint. From all the drama! Of being forced to date jerks!
Still p. 7: More self-obsessed PC whining: “First week on the job an editor strolled past my desk and said in the deliberate, too-loud English they would all come to use on me, ‘I’m so glad you’re here representing your people.’” No whiteys talk like this to Hispanics, at least not that I’ve ever heard. The other two options are to say “I’m not glad you’re here,” in which case she’d complain about the hostility, or to say nothing, in which case she’d complain about being “culturally erased” or something.
Still p. 7: Check this out: Our Narratrix wants another beer, and is peeved that the waitress is distracted by the bar’s TV: “Como? she asks, looking confused. She was watching a Mexican soap opera on a small TV behind the counter and looks annoyed to be bothered with, you know, work.” Jesus, bitch, it was just at the top of the previous page that you complained about being expected to do your job!
P.9: attention whore ultra-fantasy. Our Narratrix is a reporter, as I may have mentioned once or twice. The paper she works for, The Gazette, has recently, well, read:
“It’s getting a little harder to take public transit because the Gazette recently put up billboards all over town with my huge red-brown curly hair and grinning freckled face on them, accompanied by the idiotic words ‘Lauren Fernandez: Her Casa Is Your Casa, Boston.’”
This chick—I mean the author, Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez— is 200-proof female psychology. You can sense her having some sort of attention-whoregasm as she fantasizes about having her face on billboards all over a major city.
Why the billboard thing targeted to Hispanics? Because…
“Money talks, see. Hispanics are no longer seen as a foreign unwashed menace taking over the public schools with that dirty little language of theirs; we are a domestic market.”
What you mean “we,” hon? On several previous pages you mentioned that you don’t speak Spanish, and acted all aggrieved that whiteys might assume that you did just because you’re, you know… Hispanic. (She actually calls that assumption “illogical.”) Now in the context of the Spanish language you’re suddenly using the word “we.”
Seriously, from page 7:
“Here’s how my job interview went: You’re a Latina? How… neat. You must speak Spanish, then? When you’ve got $15.32 in your bank account… what do you say to a question like that, even when the answer is no? …With a name like Lauren Fernandez, they figured Spanish was part of the package. But that’s the American disease as I see it: rampant, illogical stereotyping.” (If you hate it so much here, you are quite welcome to leave.) And page 8: “But what I thought was: Just hire me. I’ll learn Spanish later.”
Having explicitly stated that she doesn’t speak Spanish, and called anyone who assumes she does a bigot, she then says, “Hispanics are no longer seen as a foreign unwashed menace… with that dirty little language of theirs; we are a domestic market.” We?
Let’s skip ahead 100 pages to page 105: Her boss Chuck, a ridiculous dorky white man – of course – can’t speak Spanish. While she doesn’t actually say “I’m aggrieved by this!” it’s a strong subtext:
“It wasn’t until [blah blah] that Chuck figured out who Ricky Martin was. Now he goes around, years too late, singing “Livin’ la Vida Loca,” only he can’t say vida and he can’t say loca, so he ends up singing ‘Livin’ Evita Loqua.’”
He can’t pronounce words in Spanish – a language which I don’t speak either. But I’m going to act aggrieved anyway. It’s so culturally insennnnnnsitive! How DARE you not speak a language which I also don’t speak?! You fucking American bigot!
I remember when Livin’ la Vida Loca was a hit. I never encountered a whitey who couldn’t say it. “Vida” and “loca” are easy words to say. She couldn’t even be bothered to come up with a word that contains, for example, the letter ñ (say “enye”), which is not pronounced like n, and which a non-Spanish speaker might actually be confused about. For someone who writes so voluminously – you should read the 100 pages of pointless filler I skipped over – she sure is a lazy writer. How hard would it have been to make up such an example?
Enraging though all this is, it’s a great example of the sheer illogicality of leftism and female-think. And when you combine leftism and female-think, WOW. First she whines that she’s expected to do her job (how unfair!). Then whines that the waitress isn’t doing her job. Then she denies speaking Spanish, then acts personally aggrieved that some whiteys might have a low opinion of Spanish. Jeez. The sheer lack of any consistency, or any concern for consistency, really is shocking. Yeah, I know I shouldn’t be shocked. I’ve been studying leftists, and women, for decades. Yet the Satan-level hypocrisy and double standards make steam come out of my ears.
A Net search reveals that the author of this identity-politics Communist Manifesto got a job at the Los Angeles Times after this novel was published. (The double-journalist set of characters was obviously an author-insert fantasy.) Anyway, she ended up quitting her job at the L.A. Times, accusing that paper of… can you guess? I bet you can! … racism and sexism! Surprise!
In what other country in the world would people put up with this crap? If you went to China, got a cushy “job” as a “reporter” and then quit with complaints that the newspaper was full of Chinese people, I’m pretty sure they’d “invite” you to leave the country. Only in the white world do we let people come to our countries and abuse us this way. The situation cannot last.
Back to it. P. 102: a diatribe against a right-wing journalist lying. Unreal. Who lies more, right-wing journalists or left-wing journalists? On the same page, a diatribe against a right-wing political group throwing Molotov cocktails. Bitch, please! Who throws more Molotov cocktails, right-wingers or left-wingers? It really is true that leftists always project.
Also on page 102: She recalls that when she started working at the newspaper, an old hand gave her three pieces of advice, Blah, Blah-blah, and “Three, don’t wear your skirts so short ’cuz you’re makin’ me sweat.” You wish, honey.
P. 103: Back near the start of the book, the Narratrix had recalled a scene in which a college professor was so scared of having several hispanic women in the class that he was literally trembling. (WTF?) on p. 103 we get more surreal fantasizing that white people find her scary because she’s hispanic: “I love my desk. I have draped it in Mexican rugs and Santeria beads just to scare everyone.” Then, in the same paragraph, some whining about her boss sending her out to cover a story and adding, “Bring me back some biscotti, almond.” Ah, yes, I always order people I’m scared of to run errands for me.
P. 103-4: Complaining about how her boss sent her on a job to cover some Mexican laborers. How dare he assume that I’m Mexican, just because I’m hispanic! MAYBE THAT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT YOU DRAPED MEXICAN RUGS ALL OVER YOUR DESK, YOU FUCKING CUNT.
Alright, I’m done. Pretty sure this book doesn’t contain any fun “dirty girl” stuff, now that I’m more than 100 pages into it. Given that nothing prefigured by the title actually appears in the novel, as far as I can tell, I infer that the title was purely chosen to trick people into reading the identity politics screeching.
The author, Stephanie Burke, is a long-time attendee and panelist at Fantasy/SciFi conventions like the one in Baltimore, Balticon. At the latest Balticon she was falsely accused of various statements of the type that that politically correct people like to screech about. I say she was falsely accused because the recording of one panel she spoke at turned up nothing “offensive,” a witness at another panel recalled nothing “offensive,” and when she requested to know the evidence against her, the accuser laughed in her face.
After being falsely and frivolously accused of making objectionable statements, she was roughly and loudly removed from yet another panel where she was scheduled to speak, in view of many audience members. Burke generally had her name dragged through the mud with bizarre accusations about insulting Gypsies and transgenders, the latter being particularly weird since she says she has a “transgendered daughter” herself.
Burke is a black woman with a transgendered child and she has written a book of gay porn gay romance. Here’s the link at Amazon (where it’s categorized as “Fantasy” for some reason). She also claims to have neurological issues, so she could play the “ablest” card.
None of this protected her.
In case you’re a leftist who is just starting to explore “right-wing” thought, or who wound up here by accident, this is why we have sayings like “The Left always eats its own,” “The Revolution devours its children,” etc. That last saying came from Jacques Mallet du Pan’s observations on the French Revolution in response to events like Robespierre being executed without trial by his fellow leftist revolutionaries, shortly after he recommended that… “counterrevolutionaries” be executed without trial. LOL. And remember how Trotsky died. These sayings exist because they’re true.
I imagine Stephanie Burke thought herself absolutely bulletproof: She’s a female, black, gay-porn writing, mother of a transgender, with neurological issues. Yet all that amounted to nothing. She might as well have been a straight white man in a MAGA hat.
Each individual leftist always has a bizarre fantasy that the revolution will stop precisely where he wants it to stop. Of course this is ridiculous. Leftism is a machine and once you’ve started it rolling downhill you cannot stop it where you please. Yes, this applies to you.
Or, to switch metaphors:
It’s easy to invite a vampire into your house, but getting it to leave again is another matter.
John Milton’s Paradise Lost was first published in 1667. It is a rewarding work for several reasons. Milton’s writing is captivatingly vivid and imaginative. E.g. there’s a scene in Hell in which Satan, approaching Hell’s gates, has his path blocked by Death. They square off, and you can practically smell the thunderclouds gathering. And Milton’s descriptions of Eden are lush, as lush as Eden itself.
Another interesting element of this work: I’d always thought that beginning a work of literature or theatre in media res was a peculiarly modern practice. But Paradise Lost opens with Lucifer and the other fallen angels picking themselves up and dusting themselves off in Hell. Only much later do we get a flashback to the battle in Heaven that ends with them being cast down into Hell.
Because the language is three and a half centuries old, I have benefitted from reading an annotated edition, with the annotations at the bottom of each page so one needn’t flip back and forth to get at them. I recommend such to anyone who plans on reading this classic.
But enough preliminaries. This is a Red Pill in Fiction post. Our focus will be the passages in which Eve, and then Adam, are tempted into sin. This whole section of Paradise Lost draws out and makes explicit certain features of female psychology that are present but less explicit in the Bible. Back in the 1600s there were a lot fewer delusions about women in the cultural air.
(1) Milton knew about the female rationalization hamster. The setup: Satan is lurking around the Garden of Eden to tempt Adam and Eve into sin. God, aware of this, sends the angel Raphael to warn them. Raphael describes the War in Heaven to Adam and Eve, establishing Satan’s evil, then basically says, “That demon is coming to tempt you into sin. Don’t fall for his wiles.”
Eve’s hamster kicks into high gear the moment she learns that Satan is on the loose. She hamsterbates wildly, spewing a bunch of sophistry to convince Adam to let her wander off when she knows there’s an evil man in the area.
After Raphael has departed, Eve: Adam hon, we’ve got a lot of work to do, pruning all these plants and whatnot as God has ordered us, so
“Let us divide our labours; thou, where choice Leads thee, or where most needs, whether to wind The woodbine round this arbour, or direct The clasping ivy where to climb; while I, In yonder spring of roses intermixed With myrtle, find what to redress till noon: For, while so near each other thus all day Our task we choose, what wonder if so near Looks intervene and smiles, or object new Casual discourse draw on; which intermits Our day’s work…”
We wouldn’t want to hang around near each other; we might be tempted to interrupt the work God has assigned to us!
Adam: Aw, babe, God hasn’t told us that we can never talk or snuggle-boo! He created us to enjoy life. And besides, this Garden is never really going to be in control until we have more hands to help us out, if you know what I mean. Nevertheless…
“to short absence I could yield: For solitude sometimes is best society, And short retirement urges sweet return. But other doubt possesses me, lest harm Befall thee severed from me; for thou knowest What hath been warned us, what malicious foe Envying our happiness, and of his own Despairing, seeks to work us woe and shame By sly assault; and somewhere nigh at hand Watches, no doubt, with greedy hope to find His wish and best advantage, us asunder; Hopeless to circumvent us joined, where each To other speedy aid might lend at need: Whether his first design be to withdraw Our fealty from God, or to disturb Conjugal love, than which perhaps no bliss Enjoyed by us excites his envy more; Or this, or worse, leave not the faithful side That gave thee being, still shades thee, and protects. The wife, where danger or dishonour lurks, Safest and seemliest by her husband stays, Who guards her, or with her the worst endures.”
“that thou shouldst my firmness therefore doubt To God or thee, because we have a foe May tempt it, I expected not to hear. His violence thou fearest not, being such As we, not capable of death or pain, Can either not receive, or can repel. His fraud is then thy fear; which plain infers Thy equal fear, that my firm faith and love Can by his fraud be shaken or seduced; Thoughts, which how found they harbour in thy breast, Adam, mis-thought of her to thee so dear?”
In short, “Don’t you trust me? I’m hurt!” This is the kind of thing you get in field reports on long-term-relationship Game blogs today. Not only is female nature the same, even the particular bullshit arguments and emotional manipulations are the same, as back in Milton’s day.
Adam at this point should say, “There’s a dangerous being about; you’re staying with me, discussion over.” But instead he’s like, “Babe, it’s not that I doubt you; it’s just that the very fact that he might try to tempt your virtue would be an insult to you. He wouldn’t dare try it if I’m around, so stay with me.” Notice he’s trying to reason with her, and he’s also showing weakness. She knows quite well he doesn’t trust her— and as events show he’s damn well right not to— but by showing himself afraid to lay down the law, he earns her contempt and makes the situation worse.
Her response is— surprise!— more hamsterbating rationalizations about why she should wander off alone:
“If this be our condition, thus to dwell In narrow circuit straitened by a foe… How are we happy, still in fear of harm? But harm precedes not sin: only our foe, Tempting, affronts us with his foul esteem Of our integrity: his foul esteem Sticks no dishonour on our front, but turns Foul on himself; then wherefore shunned or feared By us? who rather double honour gain From his surmise proved false… And what is faith, love, virtue, unassayed Alone, without exteriour help sustained?”
She really wants to jet off and find the bad boy. If I were Adam, what I’d be learning about my wife in this conversation would totally change how I see her, and not for the better.
Adam: Babe, look: God Himself made us, so we basically already know we’re pretty much perfect. We don’t need to test that. But also, he did give us free will, which could be an entry point for some subtle sophistry of the enemy…
“…Not then mistrust, but tender love, enjoins, That I should mind thee oft; and mind thou me. Firm we subsist, yet possible to swerve; Since Reason not impossibly may meet Some specious object by the foe suborned, And fall into deception unaware, Not keeping strictest watch, as she was warned. Seek not temptation then, which to avoid Were better, and most likely if from me Thou sever not: Trial will come unsought. Wouldst thou approve thy constancy, approve First thy obedience; the other who can know, Not seeing thee attempted, who attest?”
If only he’d stopped there. But he continues:
“But, if thou think, trial unsought may find Us both securer than thus warned thou seemest, Go; for thy stay, not free, absents thee more; Go in thy native innocence, rely On what thou hast of virtue; summon all!”
“With thy permission then, and thus forewarned Chiefly by what thy own last reasoning words Touched only; that our trial, when least sought, May find us both perhaps far less prepared, The willinger I go, nor much expect A foe so proud will first the weaker seek; So bent, the more shall shame him his repulse.”
Yadda yadda, hamsterbate hamsterbate, see ya later! Now where’s that lawless rebel bad boy?! Whoops, goodness, I almost slipped and fell! Some slick substance is coming out of that hole between my legs and running down my leg. I wonder why? How strange!
(2) Lucifer’s corrupting of Eve is almost explicitly sexual. The whole scene reeks of seduction. It is very much the bad bad man seducing a woman away from her nice-guy boyfriend/husband.
It starts with… peacocking! Satan, having possessed the serpent:
“toward Eve Addressed his way: not with indented wave, Prone on the ground, as since; but on his rear, Circular base of rising folds, that towered Fold above fold, a surging maze! his head Crested aloft, and carbuncle his eyes; With burnished neck of verdant gold, erect Amidst his circling spires, that on the grass Floated redundant: pleasing was his shape And lovely”
When he sees that Eve has noticed him he lays on some flattery about how goddess-level beautiful she is. Should’ve opened with a neg, but I guess Milton wasn’t that much of a playah. Eve expresses surprise that the snake can talk all of a sudden, and he’s like, “Oh yeah, it was the weirdest thing! I just ate some fruit from this one tree and suddenly I became like so much smarter and wiser! Isn’t that cool?!”
You’d think Eve would catch on at this point— she and Adam have been warned about a particular tree— but she doesn’t, or tells herself that she doesn’t.
Here’s part of Satan-as-the-Serpent’s patter:
“I chanced A goodly tree far distant to behold Loaden with fruit of fairest colours mixed, Ruddy and gold: I nearer drew to gaze; When from the boughs a savoury odour blown, Grateful to appetite, more pleased my sense Than smell of sweetest fennel, or the teats Of ewe or goat dropping with milk at even, Unsucked of lamb or kid, that tend their play. To satisfy the sharp desire I had Of tasting those fair apples, I resolved…”
There are a lot of double meanings in Paradise Lost (again, get an annotated edition to pick up on it). As one commentator has noted, the language in it is “unceasingly active.” With that in mind, note the double-entendre in the reference to teats dripping with milk, and then “To satisfy the sharp desire I had Of tasting those fair apples…”
This juxtaposition is almost certainly not an accident, and it brings the sexual element of Satan’s tempting of Eve to the forefront.
Serpent: “About the mossy trunk I wound me soon.” I know I have a dirty mind, but this also strikes me as sexual; he’s physically taking possession of the tree. I mean, why is he even telling Eve this detail?
And recall the word “erect” describing the serpent earlier, when he first appears in Eve’s view, and note it’s emphasized by being placed at the end of its line.
Eve, who doesn’t know which tree the serpent is referring to, says, “Lead me there.” He does, and she’s like, “Oh, too bad; this is the one tree that God told us we can’t eat from.” Satan lays some sophistry on her: “Come on, you know you wanna; live a little!” When he’s done making his case:
“He ended; and his words, replete with guile, Into her heart too easy entrance won”
The serpent (who is a big long tube of muscle) easily gets into Eve. It’s too easy to read this in Beavis-and-Butthead voice. But seriously: of all the animals that could have seduced a female into bad behavior, it just happens to be the one that’s unmistakably phallic? No, the sexual element is definitely there. Of course it’s there in Genesis to begin with, but Milton took it and ran with it.
Anyway, the serpent’s bullshit just kick-starts the temptation process. The real work is done by Eve herself, who becomes one with her rationalization hamster at this point:
“ ‘Great are thy virtues, doubtless, best of fruits, Though kept from man, and worthy to be admired; Whose taste, too long forborn, at first assay Gave elocution to the mute, and taught The tongue not made for speech to speak thy praise: Thy praise he also, who forbids thy use, Conceals not from us, naming thee the tree Of knowledge, knowledge both of good and evil; Forbids us then to taste! but his forbidding Commends thee more, while it infers the good By thee communicated, and our want: For good unknown sure is not had; or, had And yet unknown, is as not had at all. In plain then, what forbids he but to know, Forbids us good, forbids us to be wise, Such prohibitions bind not. But, if death Bind us with after-bands, what profits then Our inward freedom? In the day we eat Of this fair fruit, our doom is, we shall die! How dies the Serpent? he hath eaten and lives, And knows, and speaks, and reasons, and discerns, Irrational till then. For us alone Was death invented? or to us denied This intellectual food, for beasts reserved? For beasts it seems: yet that one beast which first Hath tasted envies not, but brings with joy The good befallen him, author unsuspect, Friendly to man, far from deceit or guile. What fear I then? rather, what know to fear Under this ignorance of good and evil, Of God or death, of law or penalty? Here grows the cure of all, this fruit divine, Fair to the eye, inviting to the taste, Of virtue to make wise: What hinders then To reach, and feed at once both body and mind?’ So saying, her rash hand in evil hour Forth reaching to the fruit, she plucked, she eat!”
“…Eve, Intent now wholly on her taste, nought else Regarded; such delight till then, as seemed, In fruit she never tasted, whether true Or fancied so, through expectation high Of knowledge; not was Godhead from her thought. Greedily she ingorged without restraint, And knew not eating death…”
(3) After the damage is done, Eve tells Adam that he should have resisted her wiles more. “How dare you not stop me from doing what I did!” What a twat.
“Would thou hadst hearkened to my words, and stayed With me, as I besought thee, when that strange Desire of wandering, this unhappy morn, I know not whence possessed thee; we had then Remained still happy; not, as now, despoiled Of all our good; shamed, naked, miserable! Let none henceforth seek needless cause to approve The faith they owe; when earnestly they seek Such proof, conclude, they then begin to fail.”
Eve refuses to take responsibility and blames him:
“What words have passed thy lips, Adam severe! Imputest thou that to my default, or will Of wandering, as thou callest it, which who knows But might as ill have happened thou being by, Or to thyself perhaps?… Was I to have never parted from thy side? As good have grown there still a lifeless rib. Being as I am, why didst not thou, the head, Command me absolutely not to go, Going into such danger, as thou saidst?”
Fuck you, bitch! Aargh, this pisses me off. She tries every argument she can muster to get away by herself, then commits a sin, then blames him for not stopping her! Grrr!
“Too facile then, thou didst not much gainsay; Nay, didst permit, approve, and fair dismiss. Hadst thou been firm and fixed in thy dissent, Neither had I transgressed, nor thou with me.”
“Sure, I sinned, but it’s your fault for not stopping me!” Bitch!
“I thought No evil durst attempt thee; but I rue The errour now, which is become my crime, And thou the accuser. Thus it shall befall Him, who, to worth in women overtrusting, Lets her will rule: restraint she will not brook; And, left to herself, if evil thence ensue, She first his weak indulgence will accuse.”
(4) God’s judgment on Adam and Eve in Eden contains a lot of red pill ideas. By the way, in Paradise Lost it is not God but Jesus who descends from Heaven to judge Adam and Eve. This is bizarrely contra-textual: Genesis is very clear that it’s God. I have no idea what Milton thought he was doing here. I seem to remember some theological controversy about whether or not Jesus always existed in Heaven before he was born on Earth. I’ll leave that one to theologians. Milton’s position on that is quite clear, since the judging of Adam and Eve is preceded by pages of text of Jesus in Heaven, first being introduced by God to the angels, then kicking Satan’s ass out of Heaven during the War in Heaven, then talking with God about how to handle Adam and Eve. I’m going to un-do Milton’s weird ret-conning and correctly portray the judge as God.
Adam to God: “Uh, the woman tempted me, yeah, some commands were disobeyed, some forbidden fruits were eaten…”
God to Adam:
“Was she thy God, that her thou didst obey Before his voice? or was she made thy guide, Superiour, or but equal, that to her Thou didst resign thy manhood, and the place Wherein God set thee above her made of thee, And for thee, whose perfection far excelled Hers in all real dignity? Adorned She was indeed, and lovely, to attract Thy love, not thy subjection; and her gifts Were such, as under government well seemed; Unseemly to bear rule; which was thy part And person, hadst thou known thyself aright.”
And after rebuking Eve, back to Adam:
“Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, And eaten of the tree, concerning which I charged thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat thereof: Cursed is the ground for thy sake; thou in sorrow Shalt eat thereof, all the days of thy life…”
God: You are banned from this Garden; by the sweat of thy brow thou will earn thy bread.
Adam: Can we get our hands stamped so we can get back in later?
God: NO!! You’re banned forever. And I’m setting up a bouncer at the eastern door that’s a giant sword that turns every which way. And thou, Eve, will suffer tribulations of child-rearing.
Eve: Whatever, how bad can it be? OW, fucking Legos! Damn, these things are sharp. If we had shoes instead of being naked…
God: Very well, here are some animal skins you may use as raiments.
Eve: Thanks. Now we’ll just be on our way. Oh, DAMN IT, what a mess! Spill-proof child cup, my ass!
God: Take off. And don’t touch my stuff ever again. I foresee that the next person who tries that will be many centuries in the future, with a forbidden ark, and I’m gonna melt his face off like a wax candle in a microwave.
(5) Vox Day’s “Women ruin everything,” John Milton style. After sentence has been passed and God has returned to Heaven, Adam addresses Eve. Regarding the first line of this next passage, my edition notes that when Milton wrote, the name Eve was thought to be etymologically related to the Hebrew word for “serpent”:
“Out of my sight, thou Serpent! That name best Befits thee with him leagued, thyself as false And hateful; nothing wants, but that thy shape, Like his, and colour serpentine, may show Thy inward fraud; to warn all creatures from thee Henceforth; lest that too heavenly form, pretended To hellish falsehood, snare them! But for thee I had persisted happy; had not thy pride And wandering vanity, when least was safe, Rejected my forewarning, and disdained Not to be trusted; longing to be seen, Though by the Devil himself.
And more that shall befall; innumerable Disturbances on earth through female snares, And strait conjunction with this sex: for either He never shall find out fit mate… Or whom he wishes most shall seldom gain Through her perverseness, but shall see her gained By a far worse…”
The preface to my edition mentions that feminists don’t like Milton, for some reason.
Well, there it is. Pretty based on the red-pill stuff, and I haven’t even given you all of it.
But most of this work is not about chicks; it’s about religion. It has war between good and evil, excellent descriptions of various locations (Hell, Eden, etc.), love, sin, death, pride, promised redemption, a fuck-ton of allusions to Greek myths (if you like that sort of thing) and of course the Bible, and some very vivid, hard-core descriptions of monsters, gods, and devils. As just one example, here’s Milton’s take on Sin: She looks like a beautiful woman from the waist up but from the waist down she’s a bunch of snakes. Dogs erupt from her womb hourly, run around, then climb back inside her and gnaw at her internal organs until they’re all eaten up, then they burst forth again and the cycle repeats. Yikes.
Index page for my Red Pill in Fiction posts (or just see the top of this page):
In that light: Here’s an (edited) excerpt from Illuminatus! by Shea and Wilson (pages 62-3 in the 1988 omnibus edition). Simon Moon, an Irish kid in the mid-20th century, is the son of two anarchist parents. His mother is more of a hippy type and his father is one of those hard-nosed “Organize, boys!”-type leftist anarchists. His parents frequently have political arguments. Simon:
I got stoned one night and went home to see what it would be like relating to Mom and Dad in that condition… Tolstoy coming out of her mouth, Bakunin out of his. Two dead Russians debating with each other, long after they were dead and buried, out of the mouths of a pair of Chicago Irish radicals.
“You’re both wrong,” I said. “Freedom won’t come through Love, and it won’t come through Force. It will come through the Imagination.” I put in all the capital letters and I was so stoned that they got contact-high and heard them, too. Their mouths dropped open.
Dad was the first to recover. “Imagination,” he said, his big red face crinkling in that grin that always drove the cops crazy when they were arresting him. “That’s what comes of sending good working-class boys to rich people’s colleges. When you were in that jail in Mississippi you imagined yourself through the walls, didn’t you? How many times an hour did you imagine yourself through the walls? I can guess. The first time I was arrested, I walked through those walls a million times. But every time I opened my eyes, the walls and the bars were still there. What got me out finally? What got you out of Biloxi finally? Organization. If you want big words to talk to intellectuals, that’s a fine big word, son, just as many syllables as imagination, and it has a lot more realism in it.”
The scene ends there, but what Simon should have said is, “If you could change how those cops imagine the world in the right way, they wouldn’t have put you in jail in the first place.”
If we want large numbers of men to coordinate the use of violence to enforce certain norms, we must have an ideology that facilitates cooperation. Incentives are helpful and indeed necessary, but incentives with an ideology that has moral/ethical components is even better. One might even call that a religion. And if this ideology is coordinating the reigning use of force in society— or if its adherents aspire that it eventually do so— one might even call it a state religion.
You must bring a gun to a gun fight and a religion to a holy war.
(3) A related point: It’s not enough to have a religion that will help you kick demonic sociopaths out of power. You must also make plans for maintaining your religion’s integrity over the years and centuries. Infiltration, or entryism, is one of our enemy’s most effective methods of subversion.
“The clockwork regularity with which absolutists farm out government to a cabal of bureaucrats and professors, lose memetic sovereignty a generation later, and lose their heads a generation after that, never ceases to impress me.”
(4) The upcoming civil wars in the western world should be called the Collective Guilt Wars. That way, in the post war era, no one will ever again be able to try the collective guilt trick; trying it will instantly identify them as that era’s equivalent of a “Nazi.”
“Tradition is not something constant but the product of a process of selection guided not by reason but by success. It changes but can rarely be deliberately changed. Cultural selection is not a rational process.”
“Solopsism and other related Gnostic philosophies ought to be responded to by punching the philosopher in the balls until he accepts that you did not actually punch him in the balls and it is just the illusion of his senses.”
Twelve-month inflation rates. It’s impossible not to notice the trend.
Mar 2020 – Mar 2021: 2.7 Apr 2020 – Apr 2021: 4.2 May 2020 – May 2021: 4.9 June 2020 – June 2021: 5.3 July 2020 – July 2021: 5.3 Aug 2020 – Aug 2021: 5.2 Sept 2020 – Sept 2021: 5.4 Oct 2020 – Oct 2021: 6.2 Nov 2020 – Nov 2021: 6.8 Dec 2020 – Dec 2021: 7.1 Jan 2021 – Jan 2022: 7.5 Feb 2021 – Feb 2022: 7.9 Mar 2021 – Mar 2022: 8.6
Source data: Federal Reserve Economic Data. The are different ways of calculating consumer prices so other sources may give somewhat different results. But the trend is not in doubt.
While I’m on the subject, here’s the price of oil. The current upward trajectory in oil’s price started in April 2020, almost two years before FASCIST NAZI HITLER PUTIN’s!!!! invasion of Ukraine. Yet every Democrat from Biden on down is saying “The rise in oil prices is Putin’s fault.” It’s amazing how freely and unhesitatingly Democrats lie, even about the most easily checkable matters.
Severian at Founding Questions has recently been thinking about Julian Jaynes’s “bicameral mind” theory. Halfway through the book I’ve decided I’m not a fan of Jaynes – his logical leaps based on irrelevant evidence can be quite, er, impressive. But as he notes, his theory has different parts, and some may be sorta true for some people even if other aspects are completely false. One part is that people in olden times used to hallucinate voices which they interpreted as instructions from gods or kings.
This part could apply in particular to leftists, by which I mean street-level leftists (not the leadership). Leftists were hit with the tag “NPC”— “non-player character”— for a reason. They can’t think, they have no desire to think, they don’t even know what thinking is. They just look around for authority to obey.
(Women are particularly notorious for this, among red-pilled men, but it’s a general phenomenon on the left.)
Leftists only care about which god/king is the strongest, and which god/king is the strongest is decided by which one has more adherents.
(Or perhaps it’s power-weighted adherents that matters. One famous sports star has as much weight as ten regular people, or whatever.)
This certainly could be one way of accounting for leftists’ baffling and infuriating total indifference to fact, truth, common sense, or even internal consistency. They simply don’t care about those things. They’re just looking around for the most powerful god. And the most powerful god is the one whose voice is most powerful. This accounts for the fact that to them, what’s on TV is what matters, pretty much by definition. TV is the voice of the god in modern society. If you’re saying something that’s opposed to TV, you’re opposing the only thing that matters, the voice of Authority. Leftists are utterly baffled by why you’d want to do that.
This is one of the reasons that their opposition to President Trump was so shriekingly disproportionate. Imagine that nothing matters to you but obeying and publicly repeating what Authority says. As long as Harvard, the New York Times, and the President all speak with one voice, no problem. But if Harvard and the New York Times say one thing and the President says the opposite… Disaster! Catastrophe! The end of the world! Two camps, both of indisputable Authority, saying opposite things! You don’t know whom to obey! This is what leftists have in place of cognitive dissonance. And it’s agonizing for them. Hypocrisy obviously does not bother them in the least. Saying that white people who flee black neighborhoods are evil, while being a white person fleeing a black neighborhood, doesn’t even register with them. But not knowing who to obey, that is the worst emotional and intellectual torture that it is possible for them to experience. And yet… of course they know that really it was Trump who was out of step with True Authority: He disagreed with what “journalists” and college professors said! That is literally the most heretical of all possible heresies! But still, the Presidency is nevertheless very real, undeniably important and valid Authority. Anything to stop this pain of divided Authority!
This explains the enraging tendency for leftists, noted by pretty much every person on the right, to be utterly immune to fact and logic 99% of the time… and if you do, miraculously, manage to wrest a concession about some issue from them, the next time you see them they’ll have done a complete memory wipe of the debate and tell you they kicked your ass in that debate. All the facts, logic, reason, arguments that you marshaled will have been forgotten, absolutely forgotten. Why? And how? Simple: They don’t actually care about any of those things. The voice of Authority is telling them something different from what you proved yesterday, ergo you cannot have proved it.
Today you get one of them to admit that, say, government policies were the preponderant cause of the mortgage bubble and collapse of circa 2008. “Thank God!” you think. “That took seven hours of debate but at least I made a tiny dent in leftism.” But lo and behold! When you see him the next day he tells you that you proved no such thing and that the mortgage collapse was entirely caused by greedy white male capitalist loan officers. He totally denies everything that he conceded less than 24 hours before, to an utterly shameless extent that would be gaslighting if he were doing it on purpose. But that’s not really what’s going on; he’s not thinking “Bwah ha ha; I shall now gaslight this person.” What’s going on is that within 5 seconds of leaving your presence he reboots and reinstalls the Official Party Line of Authority, and the Official Party Line of Authority is that the mortgage meltdown was caused by greedy white male capitalist loan officers.
(If he’s not totally goodthinkful leftist— that is, if facts sorta enter his head, in a dim way, once or twice a year— the rebooting may require that he hop onto the Net and read a sentence or two of some Op-Ed that appeared on CNN’s web site, which reminds him of what Authority’s official position is.)
Authority’s official position is a substitute for the truth in his little leftist NPC mind. It is isomorphic to the truth in the NPC mental topology. We have truth; they have “what Authority says.”
Authority’s Official Party Line is not necessarily truth— which does not exist in any important sense in the leftist mind— rather, Authority’s Official Party Line is What We Are Saying. What We Say is what Authority Says. Repeating What Authority Says is What We Do and the truth of the claims assertions propositions strings of words is not even a question that it occurs to leftists to ask, let alone care about.
We have truth; leftists have What Authority Says.
An example. Remember when you got up this morning. Think about the shirt you’re wearing now (shirt, dress, blouse, whatever). Remember how, before you put it on, you counted every thread in it to make sure that it doesn’t have a prime number of threads? Wait, what? You didn’t do that? It didn’t even OCCUR to you to do that? The thought never even entered your head? That’s how leftists are about the truth of the claims wordstrings they repeat. It literally never enters their heads to care whether they’re true or not. If they think about it at all, they think WE’RE the weird ones because we care about truth!
This also accounts for the bizarre leftist tactic in debate of saying “No one else agrees with you.” To them this is a devastating nuclear bomb. They expect you to be crushed. Or at least to care. That we brush it off and go on talking about facts probably baffles and frustrates them as much as their total indifference to facts baffles and frustrates us.
So we won’t make progress in defeating the broad mass of the leftist cadre until we take over the educational system and the media. Yikes. That’s not going to happen short of a no-foolin’ civil war. Luckily— “luckily,” snort— the left is bumbling us into one with their insanity and hysterical refusal to compromise about anything ever. Also, the domestic situation will be shaken up enormously, natch, if we get involved with a war with Russia, the world’s largest nuclear power. And that could happen if our insane NPCs don’t back off. And so far they’re refusing to back off…
Then the Clinton campaign gets fined by the Federal Election Commission for electoral violations regarding the fake Steele dossier… and the media reports this!
From an article by Eric Tucker, Associated Press, circa March 20, 2022. Oligarchs drop their lawsuit over Trump dossier. (There’s that word “oligarchs” again. Empirically, it means: A rich person who’s a citizen of a country we’re currently doing a two-minute hate on.) There are a few interesting admissions in this article, all within one paragraph:
The Steele dossier has been largely discredited since its publication, with core aspects of the material exposed as unsupported and unproven rumors. A special counsel assigned to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe has charged one of Steele’s sources for the dossier with lying to the FBI, and has also charged a cybersecurity lawyer who worked for Hillary Clinton’s campaign with lying to the FBI during a 2016 meeting in which he relayed concerns about Alfa Bank.
Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation into whether they violated campaign finance law by misreporting spending on research that eventually became the infamous Steele dossier…
Documents have shown the FBI invested significant resources attempting to corroborate the dossier and relied substantially on it to obtain surveillance warrants targeting former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
But the dossier has been largely discredited since its publication, with core aspects of the material exposed as unsupported and unproven rumors. A special counsel assigned to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia probe charged one of Steele’s sources with lying to the FBI and charged a cybersecurity lawyer who worked for Clinton’s campaign with lying to the FBI during a 2016 meeting in which he relayed concerns about the Russia-based Alfa Bank.
What the hell is going on?
If you were naive you’d say, “The truth has to come out sooner or later, and for the left this is a good time to release it, because we’re now well after the time the 2020 election can be contested, and well before the 2024 election, and everybody is currently distracted by the Russia-Ukraine thing.” But that’s wrong because no, the truth does not have to come out sooner or later, not in the minds of the NPCs who are the media’s main target audience. The media doesn’t “have to” admit anything ever.
This isn’t, say, 1999, when the Internet was big enough to affect our politics and hadn’t yet been corralled into controlled spaces like Twitter, etc.
So I have three guesses hypotheses. They all involve a ramping up of factional war within the left. One hypothesis is that first some anti-Biden faction struck at the Biden faction by reviving the Hunter Biden story. Then the Biden camp, believing— rightly or wrongly— that the Clinton camp did that, struck at the Clinton camp by spreading the news that the Steele dossier was bullshit and that the Clinton camp has been fined for it.
My second hypothesis is that this is an anti-white faction within the left striking out at both the Clinton camp and the Biden camp to hasten the demise of white influence within the Democratic party.
Or maybe it’s the Kamala Harris faction— there is a Kamala Harris faction, I guess?— getting potentially inconvenient Dems out of her way for Her Turn.
Or maybe something else. But this definitely smells like intra-left fighting to me.
Those of us with a clue do, anyway. One reads that the FEC has fined Clinton and asks, “How the fuck did THAT story get approved for publication? Who has both the power and motivation to do that?”
(Postscript: Kamala Harris getting the Big Prize would be very, very, very, very bad. But there would be a tiny silver lining, the smallest possible silver lining, a “quantum of solace,” if I may swipe a phrase from a Bond flick: Watching Hillary Clinton’s head explode literally, yes literally, like in that movie Scanners from decades ago, when some female other than Herself Clinton becomes the first woman President. Imagine Hillary seething with rage at that election result! I really hope that Harris never gets the Presidency (just saying it is scary). But if she does, God forbid, I hope she invites the Clintons to the inauguration.)