Hilariously Grandiose Commentary on the Gay NFL Guy

Back in July, Las Vegas Raiders defensive end Carl Nassib announced that he is homosexual, thus becoming the first active NFL player to do so. The commentary on this was over the top, as one would expect in CURRENT YEAR. Here are three examples.

Frank Bodani, York Daily Record
https://www.ydr.com/story/sports/college/penn-state/football/2021/06/22/nfl-tampa-bay-buccaneers-bruce-arians-calls-carl-nassib-a-role-model/5303435001/

“He may well become a beacon for acceptance, in light of his historic Monday announcement regarding his sexual orientation.”

Right, because our society doesn’t have enough acceptance of homosexuality. Meanwhile, back in reality, gay couples are profligately featured on television, both in the programming and in advertisements.

What involves greater risk – THESE DAYS, NOT 100 YEARS AGO – saying you’re homosexual or saying you’re anti-homosexual?

PS: “historic.” Oh, shut up.

“Arians, a York High graduate, owns the most diverse staff in the NFL. His Super Bowl-winning Bucs are the only team with four African-American coordinators and two full-time female coaches.”

Have I been dosed with enough hallucinogens to fell a horse, or did this guy just suggest that there aren’t enough blacks in the NFL?

Then we get a quote from Nassib’s former coach at Penn State, James Franklin:

“Carl’s brave announcement will forge a path for others to be true to their authentic self.”

FOR FUCK’S SAKE! Sometimes I feel like I could handle the propaganda blast if it weren’t so intelligence-insulting. Stop saying that coming out in 2021 is “brave”!

Bodani provides this side note:

“Franklin, meanwhile, is the first African-American head coach in Penn State history.”

Franklin is Penn State coach, and not Joe Paterno, because Paterno was fired for covering up the gay child sex assaults that happened under his watch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal
Do an article on that gay guy, Bodani!

Mike Freeman, USA Today
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/mike-freeman/2021/06/21/carl-nassib-coming-out-nfl-history-save-lives/5298945001/

The headline: “Carl Nassib’s coming out doesn’t just make history. Raiders DL [defensive lineman] could save lives.”

Oh for fuck’s sake! “Could save lives.” This is the most grandiose thing you could say. If you’re a leftist, notice that your “thought leaders” aren’t even trying to hide the fact that they’re just trolling you now.

The article begins,
“To fully understand just how brave, how stunning, how historic it is…”
GOD! HELP US! PLEASE! Not so much from the gay as from the screaming insults to our intelligence!

Reality check: In 2021, Nassib’s announcement is not in the least brave, not in the least stunning, and not in the least historic.

So brave! Meanwhile, back in reality, it’s literally the safest thing that a white male could do. He can’t change himself to a female and he can’t change himself to black, so announcing that he’s gay is the only way he can acquire political correctness points.

Actually, according to the reigning ideology, he could change himself to female by simply announcing that he’s female. OK, so it’s one of the two safest things he could do. Being safe, huddling behind an identity politics politically correct SJW victim shield is, speaking precisely, the exact opposite of brave. In our society it is the very definition of riskless playing it safe.

So of course the left claims that it’s “brave,” with their perverted sexual fetish for saying the exact opposite of the truth.

Freeman continues,

“All of those things [“hate,” etc.] likely forced a legion of NFL players to stay cloaked and hide who they truly were. They couldn’t publicly say they were gay because they might be physically attacked in the locker room. Or cut by the team. Or any number of other things that could have destroyed them or their careers.”

“Might be,” “could have…” Typically, the left is trying to get people outraged about things that never actually happened.

“Former NFL player Roy Simmons came out after his NFL career. When he published a memoir in 2006, the NFL denied his application for a radio row Super Bowl credential.”

Bullshit. It’s not clear what this means, but it seems Simmons requested press credentials for the 2006 Superbowl… three days before it (see below). Freeman nastily implies that Simmons’s request was denied because he was homosexual. He offers no evidence to support this claim. He uses the slimy phrasing “When he published a memoir in 2006, the NFL denied his application…” No, it wasn’t denied “when” he published his book. Slimy insinuations without evidence from the left. I’ve been studying leftists for decades and they still disgust me.

Per Wikipedia’s article on Simmons: “In 2006, three days before the Super Bowl, Simmons requested a media credential and two tickets to the game. The NFL denied his request, saying that it had received too many similar requests to accommodate all of them.”

Well, yes, I imagine that the requests for free tickets to the Superbowl— the largest sporting event in the US— far outstrip their availability. Especially if you don’t ask until three days before it! By the way, Wikipedia also mentions that Simmons tried to get all victimy about this, with the help of… wait for it… Gloria Allred, the ambulance-chasing lawyer who is so frequently on the scene when there’s a leftist cause to be litigated.

“What Nassib has done is help make being gay in the NFL less something to fear. But it’s bigger than even that. His announcement may have saved lives.”

LOL.

“Maybe a troubled LGBTQ teen, some of whom contemplate suicide, according to surveys, will see Nassib’s words and…”

LOL.

NFL practice squad gay Michael Sam “has said in interviews that the first time he truly understood the power of coming out was after a girl told him his announcement saved her life. She had been bullied and had been on suicide watch.”

Uh-huh.

“‘I decided to be the shield and the sword,’ Sam said…”

OK, well thanks for not getting too grandiose or anything.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell refuses to be outdone in terms of breathless rhetoric:
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/06/21/roger-goodell-nfl-is-proud-of-carl-nassib-for-courageously-sharing-his-truth/

“The NFL family is proud of Carl for courageously sharing his truth today,” Goodell said in a statement. “Representation matters. We share his hope that someday soon statements like his will no longer be newsworthy as we march toward full equality for the LGBTQ+ community. We wish Carl the best of luck this coming season.”

“The NFL family.” Ugh. Shut up, Goodell.

“is proud of Carl” For what? Being homosexual? How is that an accomplishment?

“for courageously sharing his truth” It’s not courageous! Nothing is safer in CURRENT YEAR than announcing that one is homosexual! Stop lying!

Since being homosexual is not an accomplishment (as admitted by the “gay community” themselves, since they say they’re born gay and can’t help it) there’s no way to praise being homosexual other than by pivoting, i.e. changing the subject. In our society in CURRENT YEAR, the pivot is to claiming that it’s dangerous to announce that one is homosexual (as if) and so such announcements are “brave.” Ugh. Just shut up, you intelligence-insulting douchebags.

Miscellany 24: Shred the Miscellany like You’re a Surfer and It’s the Ultimate Wave

(1) June 2021, the Dark Herald makes a side remark about Lois McMaster Bujold’s novel Memory, prompting me to glance at its Wikipedia article. I find this:

“After years of refusing to marry any of the tall, slim, eligible Barrayaran ladies paraded in front of him…Gregor unexpectedly falls in love with a short, voluptuous Komarran…”

I.e., short and fat. I’m guessing this is a fiction version of…
Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism: The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.”

(2) First, some background: The Williams Institute at UCLA is a gay and lesbian think tank. In 2011 they released a study claiming that 3.5% of American adults identify as homosexual or bisexual. (A little over half of those are people, mostly women, who identify as bi.) And since this is a gay think tank, they have an incentive to exaggerate the number. So this is an upper bound on the percent of homo- and bi-sexuals.

With that number in mind, let’s consider a recently-published novel.

Leigh Bardugo’s Crooked Kingdom is a novel about a criminal gang of seven people (To recall them for those who have read it: Kaz, Inej, Matthias, Nina, Jasper, Wylan, and Kuwei). Three of the seven are homo or bi: Jasper, Wylan, and Kuwei. In the follow-up King of Scars, per Cataline Sergius’s review June 2021 https://arkhavencomics.com/2021/06/28/book-discussion-king-of-scars-by-leigh-bardugo/, Nina becomes a lesbian, making it 4 out of 7. So more than half of the main characters are homosexual or bisexual.

This is not about “representation.”

(3) A funny aspect of Game: Because it starts by accepting certain features of female psychology like their desire for assholes instead of nice guys, one way of describing Game in general terms is

“Men cannot change women. Men have to accept women as they are.”

If just left at that, it would prompt shouts of agreement from women in general and feminists in particular: “Right on, pal!” “Preach it, brother!” “You got that right!” But the details— what it actually means to take women as they are instead of trying to change them— is something that fills feminists with rage. Feminists of course cannot abide any speech other than “All women are totally perfect in every way.” And women in general do not like to be understood in the mating game: it destroys much of their power in the game.

(4) Uri Harris, July 2017: Even moderate leftists are becoming rarer in academia.

“What is particularly striking about this shift is that the number of moderates has dropped sharply among professors…

As part of the survey, members were asked to identify their political affiliation on an eleven-point scale, from ‘very liberal’ to ‘very conservative’…

Intriguingly, the least popular point among the left-of-centre points was the most moderate one… More than two thirds (67.8 per cent) chose one of the three points furthest to the left on an eleven-point scale, and more than a third (38 per cent) chose one of the two points furthest to the left. And 16 per cent chose the furthest possible point to the left on an eleven-point scale.

This means that there were almost as many people who chose the furthest possible point to the left as there were who chose all the conservative points, the centre-point and the most moderate left-of-centre point combined.”

(5) I once read that an old definition of heresy was focusing on one of God’s attributes at the expense of others. I don’t think this definition is doctrine, but maybe it should be, since it could damp holiness spiraling. For example, focusing on God’s justice at the cost of ignoring his mercy, or focusing on God’s mercy at the cost of ignoring his justice, would be heresies.

In an environment in which promulgating heresies in this sense is energetically punished, holiness spiraling probably would have a harder time getting off the ground: You and your buddies start holiness spiraling about who can be most like God in the sense of being most just. But soon the inquisitor shows up (or tons of people weigh in on Twitter) to give you a warning about obsessing about God’s justice at the expense of ignoring His mercy. And the opposite if you’re spiraling on mercy. It could be a built-in moderator.

As I was surfing around on this topic I came across the same thought here: https://quillette.com/2017/12/12/worry-piety-contests-not-virtue-signaling/

The problem, rather, is judging the acceptability of statements and actions on the basis of a single sacred criterion. Fundamentalism in this sense is part-and-parcel of the piety contest. No matter what your foundational principle, if you have only one, there will be bullets you have to bite.

The defense against piety contests, therefore, is to cultivate a multiplicity of irreducible sacred values. This gives the moral community a vantage point from which to evaluate the consequences of each norm against something else. Christianity, for example, is filled with pairs of concepts that orthodoxy holds “in tension”: trinity and unity, free will and predestination, grace and works, and so on. Indeed, heresy has been defined as emphasizing one element of one of these pairs at the expense of the other, and throughout Christianity’s history it has been heretical movements of just this sort that have been filled with the fervent zeal of the piety contest.

(6) Biden appoints a person who said that blacks are genetically superior to whites as his civil rights Czar.
https://cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-von-spakovsky/biden-pick-civil-rights-czar-advocated-black-supremacy
The nominee is Kristen Clarke. Writing in the Harvard Crimson,

START OF QUOTE FROM FOREGOING LINK.
Clarke cited a number of “experts” regarding what she called the “truth” about the “genetic differences between blacks and whites.”

She posited that “human mental processes are controlled by melanin — that same chemical which gives blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.” Additionally, “melanin endows blacks with greater mental, physical, and spiritual abilities.”

The liberal editors of [Harvard University newspaper] The Crimson found Clarke’s “racist theories” to be “outrageous,” saying that Clarke had “resorted to bigotry, pure and simple.”… Not long after she penned her letter claiming that blacks are genetically superior to other racial groups, the Black Students Association under her leadership invited professor Tony Martin to campus.

A notorious anti-Semite, Martin’s ensuing lecture about his tract, “The Jewish Onslaught,” was apparently a racist diatribe against the Jewish people, their history, and their traditions, claiming they were the source of the supposedly “ordained” notion of “African inferiority.”

Yet Clarke told The Harvard Crimson that “Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact.”

END OF QUOTE.

(7) Related: In the comments at https://blog.reaction.la/culture/mate-guarding-game/, Rick says “This isn’t surprising but remember to let your people know the score:
https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/crime/article251689813.html
Black guy murders white retired police chief, confesses to the crime and the all black jury lets him walk.”

Here’a another link which confirms that he was acquitted: https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/crime/article251701818.html, though neither link mentions the race of the jurors.

(8) France is worried that US identity politics is penetrating France and damaging it. It’s good to know that they have the sense to be worried. Though it might be too late at this point.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1359139829418758146

“French President Emmanuel Macron has joined numerous French intellectuals & journalists in warning that ‘out-of-control woke leftism of US campuses and its attendant cancel culture’ poses a grave threat due to the social strife it creates.”

Cozying Up with a Good Book is Racist

1. It “helps to mask institutional racism.”
https://gal-dem.com/hygge-helps-to-mask-institutional-racism-in-denmark/

“It’s time for hygge (pronounced hoo-gah)… The Danish concept of hygge – its closest translation into English being ‘cosiness’… As an idea and lifestyle hygge seems pretty harmless, it encourages people to take time out of their day to enjoy the little things in life, make a soothing mug of hot chocolate and snuggle up in warm knits in front of the TV – or a log fire if you want to stay true to the Danish aesthetic.

Danish ‘cosiness’ is a notion that is not extended to those who are black or brown…”

“Extended to”? What the fuck? If you want to curl up with some hot chocolate, who’s stopping you?

2. Scandinavia Standard:

https://www.scandinaviastandard.com/what-is-hygge-racism-how-did-it-become-so-pervasive-in-danish-culture/

“Most people are familiar with the Danish concept of hygge [“most people”? Anyway…] and the image of candles and coziness it conveys… But hygge is more about a social atmosphere where all members participate: fun and conflict-free. It’s within this context that hyggeracisme happens; where one hears the N-word or sees a Nazis gesture in the name of ‘fun.’”

Danish people in 2020 giving Nazi salutes, uh-huh. Sure. This is good example of how leftists always lie about everything.

But even if this were actually true— it’s not— it is of course completely retarded. If people give Nazi salutes in houses, that proves that…. houses are racist!

3. Slate weighs in.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/01/danish-hygge-is-cozy-and-also-tied-to-right-nationalist-xenophobic-populism.html

“The endless stream of books published on the subject stress the benefits of Ugg-booted inertia and snug living rooms, covers pulled right up around adherents’ necks against the chilly world outside… It’s with a terrifying but unwitting accuracy, though, that Helen Russell, in The Year of Living Danishly, calls hygge a ‘complete absence of anything annoying or emotionally overwhelming.’”

Yeah, terrifying.

“Hygge’s turning inward against the world outside comes with a more sinister edge, however. As Charlotte Higgins pointed out… hygge’s ties to the far-right in Denmark are remarkably strong. Pia Kjærsgaard, the leader of the right-wing, anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party, has publicly extolled the virtues of the lifestyle, insisting that her office remain cozy and hyggelig at all times.”

My God! Hitler used to read books! And he was a vegetarian! Reading and vegetarianism are Nazi things! In fact, vegetarianism’s ties to Naziism are remarkably strong.

“Denmark’s welfare state and reputation for tolerance may be admired by progressives in the U.K. and U.S., but, as Higgins points out, the country’s love of hyggefied thatched cottages with closed doors suggests a conservative undercurrent.”

LOL.

But surely there’s some evidence that hygge is somehow racist? Apparently not, since here’s the best Slate can do: In some online forum, someone accused someone else of making a “little Hyggelig racist joke.” So Slate uses the common leftist move of citing someone else’s accusation made without evidence as if it somehow supports Slate’s own accusations made without evidence. They then mention that someone else in the forum, fed up with this sort of “You racist!” bullshit, called the accuser a homosexual. And this came “from a user with the word Hygge in their username.” Well, the original “racism” accusation dragged the word “hygge” into the discussion! If my user name contained the word “baseball” and you said “baseball is racist,” I might be angry too. Duh.

So what is all this really about? I think it’s about white Europeans daring to take pleasure in anything, anything at all, instead of spending every waking hour attending White People Are Evil seminars. And there is a hunting suspicion among the identity-politics left— all the left these days— that the company being enjoyed, by people sitting around enjoying each other’s company, might be Danish! Actual Danish Danish people. (As opposed to “nationality is paperwork” Danes.)

And the books being read may be books written by… Danes! And these books might not be condemning— in fact they might actually be celebrating!— traditional Danish culture! We can’t have that!

Think I’m kidding? Try this quote from the Slate article:

Some writer “says that it [hygge] falls in line with a ‘postcolonial drawbridge theory—the What was lost without [will be found within] way of valuing what little cultural and economic capital Denmark had left after the loss of its empire.’”

“How DARE you value and cherish your culture! You vicious racist!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. “Outlawed,” by Anna North

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

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

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

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

  1. “Bone Canyon,” by Lee Goldberg

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

  1. “The Push,” by Ashley Audrain

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

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

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

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

Abusive Relationship Chart

Does any of this sound familiar?

You may be in an abusive relationship if they…

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

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.

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…

Unstable Dynamics

ReservoirDogs
Is this situation game-theoretically stable?

I’ve gotten sucked back into reading the comments at Jim’s blog. It’s hard to resist since it’s the only community that uses evo psych, game theory, and holiness spirals as standard parts of their analytical toolkit.

Today, a commenter said something really out there:

Color Revolution

Some of you guys think we’ll just be teleported instantly from brick-throwing commies and shoe-stealing apes to an ancap paradise of right-wing militias… Even if that’s the endgame – and there’s no guarantee that it is – you’ll have a transitional period that lasts years, maybe decades… In between the inept police departments of today controlled by clown-world genuflecting city officials and the well-regulated militias of the idealist future, you’re apt to get 20 or 50 years of the Red Guard and Khmer Rouge.

20 to 50 years? What the hell!? Uh, no! Given something like the Khmer Rouge, normality is gone instantly and we’re at full-scale, no-one-denies-it civil war.

The current situation is incredibly unstable. It cannot last, for all kinds of reasons, for one thing because the left is desperate, for another thing because they can’t control their thugs, and principally because of the tactical advantage of the first strike.

Trump knows that he either beats them or he gets imprisoned and Epsteined. He can’t back down, not if he wants to live.

And the left won’t back down; that’s not part of the genetically-hard-wired leftist personality profile.

Not to mention the fact that the left’s plan to genocide the Europe-descended population is becoming more explicit all the time: Cf. the graffiti written by rioters, “Kill all white people.” The media isn’t reporting this, but it leaks out anyway. More and more white normies are coming to realize what the left has planned for them.

Normality, meaning politics by something other than widespread violence, is not even going to last 2 years. It would not surprise me to learn that two hours from now, something seismic happens, for good or ill. E.g., the bad guys seizing an Air Force bomber and dropping a bunker buster on the White House, or Trump rounding up the leftist half of the Supreme Court and putting them incommunicado in a holding cell somewhere.

Even low-level, “background noise” civil war is untenable now; these things tend to accelerate.

So let me reiterate my very first post on this blog, from 2016, which was simply a quote from Bertolt Brecht that leapt to mind as I looked at the storm clouds that even then were visible on the horizon:

“Because things are the way they are, they cannot stay the way they are.”

Civil war: How we got here in 48 words

This is something I wrote a couple of weeks ago, before the Second Civil war had started. 48 words on how we got here:


1. The good guys will probably win if there’s an all-out civil war,

but

2. For that very reason the less insane bad guys, who know point 1, will try to prevent a civil war,

but

3. They can’t prevent a civil war because they’re caught up in a holiness spiral.

The Second Civil War has started

I’m calling it. Obviously the Second American Civil War started when the Deep State manufactured evidence to try to undo the Presidential election of 2016. However, some people keep talking about “when the civil war starts,” as if that’s still in the future.

Well, if you had any doubts, try this: Yesterday a member of the military command structure tried to order the National Guard out of D.C. in the face of danger from a violent mob. The blatantly obvious reason: To leave the President unprotected so that leftist assassins could kill him.

Barring that, so that the President would have to flee D.C., thus starting a “Trump’s regime is falling!” narrative.

That plan failed because it turns out the National Guard obeys the Commander in Chief, not someone below him.

As I was quite sure would happen, but still: Thank God.

But that doesn’t change the fact that they tried.

Anyone who now denies that the U.S. is in civil war is a loon.


BTW, I haven’t been posting the last few days not because there’s nothing to post about, obviously, but because every time I draft a post, it’s made obsolete by new events before I can freakin’ post it. The situation is changing so fast.

As Jim says: It happens slowly, then suddenly.

Random notes on all this, some important, some less so, but I want to get some thoughts down before the next big development hits:

(1) On Antifa strategy and tactics: https://themusingsofthebigredcar.com/antifa-strategy-and-tactics/

(2) LOL, AWESOME: https://twitter.com/SteveSkojec/status/1267887483989004288

Apparently some dude disguises himself as an Antifa type, then puts MAGA bumper stickers on actual Antifa thugs’ cars and their cars get vandalized as a result. If it’s not true, it’s a great idea.

(3) Imposter tries to pass himself off as a National Guard soldier. https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020/06/02/report-lapd-arrests-man-armed-to-the-teeth-in-national-guard-uniform/
(As noted at the end of the article, the photo is not the guy who was arrested, who is one Gregory Wong.)

One guess is that this is part of a plan to create a false flag shooting of a “protester” by a purported National Guard soldier.

(4) May 2020 riots: Rioters attack the CNN headquarters in Atlanta.

LEFTISTS, YOU CANNOT CONTROL THE DEMONS YOU SUMMON.

Just accept that and suck it up.

And in Raleigh they destroy the offices of a local newspaper.

Whining newspaper employee: “I’m devastated. We are a progressive newspaper. Last night I was inside when the first brick was thrown” Awwww. Have fun eating the consequences of the hate mobs you leftists stir up. Also, maybe it’s time to let go of the bizarre delusion that if you just virtue signal hard enough, they won’t attack you. This is moronic. Did you really think that the rioters would pause before your offices, put down their bricks and matches, pull out their phones, Google your paper, see that you’re “progressive,” and leave you alone? OMG, you did think that, didn’t you? LOL.

The comments there are great, BTW; veritably 100% are saying, Enjoy your chickens coming home to roost. TONS of great comments. My current favorite: ‘I never thought leopards would eat MY face,’ sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party.

(5) Then the AFL-CIO building in D.C.:

VIDEOS: AFL-CIO Building in Washington DC Ransacked and Set on Fire

As is noted at that article, “The International Union Of Police Associations is an affiliate union,” but I imagine the rioters don’t know that. I didn’t. Also noted in the article by a witness:

Handful of people breaking glass at the AFL-CIO, some have run inside to continue beeaking [sic] things, as others in the crowd react:

“Aw, man, not the union!”
“No, stop! Unions are good!”

(6) This is hilarious. Pussy wimp coward gives thumbs up to rioters through his window, gets a rock thrown through it. Shouts “We’re on your side!” out the window, gets another rock thrown through it.

For the million bakijillionth time: APPEASING THE LEFT DOES NOT WORK.

(7) The broader, “normal” left is in a position where they must either embrace or disavow the rioters. They don’t want to embrace them because that will reduce their already-dim chances of winning in November. They don’t want to disavow them because they’re the left, and that’s just not what they do. Leftists never criticize other leftists, at least not ones more radical then themselves. Pas d’ennemis à gauche.

So they’re doing what leftists always do: Looking for a way to have their cake and eat it too. In this case that takes of form of saying, “It’s really all just white supremacists!” LOL. That way they can say “The rioters are bad” without having to disavow leftism or admit that it’s possible for leftists to ever be the bad guys or to Go Too Far, etc. Of course it’s retarded. No one is going to buy that this is “white supremacists” except people who were already going to vote left in November anyway. And probably not most of them. Everyone knows this is Antifa and other left-affiliated groups.

They are also shooting themselves in the foot, because you can’t say the rioters are justified, and also say they’re bad guys. Indeed, in the left-wing world view “white supremacists” are the worst of all possible bad guys. Watching them trying to argue “This is blacks taking righteous vengeance for 400 years of white supremacism” AND “This is a bunch of white supremacists” SIMULTANEOUSLY is hilarious.

(8) Media Falsely Claimed Violent Riots Were Peaceful And That Tear Gas Was Used Against Rioters
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/02/media-falsely-claimed-violent-riots-were-peaceful-and-that-tear-gas-was-used-against-rioters/

They were not peaceful; that’s an outright lie. They were throwing bricks, frozen water bottles, etc. at police and trying to seize their weapons!

And there was no tear gas, just smoke bombs (which do not contain chemical irritants).

(It’s also risible to listen to them say, “Trump cleared people, including media, out of Lafayette Park” and “Trump’s walk through Lafayette Park was a photo op stunt.” Let’s shorten that: “Trump cleared the media away from his photo op.” Heh. I know lefties don’t care whether their rhetoric is internally consistent, but come on!)

(9) Note on the enemy’s mental state: The left is looking either bold or desperate the last couple of days. Not that it matters since our ability to win this civil war depends mostly on factors other than the enemy’s fantasies of omnipotence/terror of just punishment. But I find it interesting that desperation and boldness look the same. Both can be summed up by the thought, “I can’t really lose by trying.” If you’re bold the sense of it is, “I’m bullet-proof!” If you’re desperate the sense of it is, “I’ve got nothing to lose anyway, so why not.”

In this case I actually think it’s both: The enemy is emboldened by the fact that they can commit the most outrageous crimes, like a treasonous attempt to undo the election of 2016, without suffering any punishment… yet. But it’s also desperation because they know that if Trump consolidates power with another four years, that immunity won’t last.

Furthermore, the more judges he appoints, the harder it will be for the enemy in the future to carry out an unconstitutional, anti-democratic coup under color of law. They’ve spent too long pushing the notion that “law” means “what some judge says.” Ginsberg can’t last forever, and a firm majority of honest judges on the Supreme Court will make it impossible to carry out a coup say three years from now, with the camouflage of a Supreme Court blessing that it’s all actually legal.

(10) Jesse Kelly: https://twitter.com/JesseKellyDC/status/1268643969258393602

You get there by playing the long game.

That’s how they [the left] got us. A thousand tiny wins and a thousand Republican concessions cause “That’s not the hill to die on.”

Look around you. The hills are gone.