A Thought Experiment

A highly contagious, moderate-to-low mortality bioweapon escapes from a lab (intentionality is impossible to determine, so it is treated as irrelevant). The fact that it came from a lab is initially obstructed by global medical and political bodies out of the two-fold fear that the news could contribute to a racist sentiment (due to its exotic origin) or reveal international monetary involvement in numerous national bioweapons programs. Indeed, it is later revealed that some of the appointed spokesmen for the pandemic response effectively signed checks for the virus’s creation (amongst other similar projects).

The virus is elusive; its less dangerous strains are so pervasive that almost everyone has some prior form of it; therefore tests for the strain appear rather unreliable at first. It is statistically asymptomatic among the young and those without any comorbidity, and quite dangerous to the elderly and those with comorbidities, prompting amateur comparisons to the seasonal flu. Indeed, during the ensuing pandemic deaths from ‘the flu’ disappear entirely, subsumed within the statistics of the non-flu virus.

World leaders, most of whom have spent the past three decades decrying human overpopulation as a threat to the species, use their emergency powers to slow this sudden depopulating. Indeed, their closure of the world economy via strict social distancing, curfews, transportation restriction, etc., places massive strain on global supply chains, to the extent that grocery store shelves in the first world deplete almost to exhaustion while full-blown starvation is triggered in pockets of the third world. The loss of jobs and entire small businesses is written off as irrelevant in comparison to the saving of human lives–even though job-loss-resultant deaths are certain and easy to quantify. In the first world, this is initially bandaged over by excessive fiat printing and direct deposits to citizenries—whiplash hyperinflation will be dealt with later.

The race is on to produce a cure. Big Pharma proposes the use of mRNA technology–gene editing, but of a less invasive sort than CRISPR. Primarily, this mRNA solution will lessen the symptoms should one contract the virus. Its effectiveness at actually stopping contraction and transmission is certainly extant, but perhaps not as prolific as Pasteur-types. The distinction between mRNA and Pasteur-type vaccines (antibody production via controlled exposure) is either beyond the layman or irrelevant to the layman due to the assurance of mainstream medical experts that both are safe and effective. However, the governments of the world kindly pass laws disallowing their citizens’ right to sue the Big Pharma producers of said vaccines in the unlikely event that they do not prove as safe and effective as desired.

There are of course unwanted side-effects from these vaccines, especially considering that they were rushed through the approval process relative to any previous that usually took years to attain approval. Some deaths and disabilities occur as a result, but they are numerically insignificant in comparison to the mortality rate of the virus itself. Indeed, the family members of those who die as a result of the vaccine frequently emphasize in feature articles that they are not anti-vax—almost as though they feel socially pressured to apologize for the narrative inconvenience of their loved one’s deaths.

Many similar articles and social media posts that could be categorized as “anti-vax” to varying degrees begin being purged from the internet by corporations and governments–including the findings of contrarian doctors and the inventor of the mRNA treatment itself.

The man who invented the mRNA technology used in some coronavirus vaccines says he was censored by YouTube for sharing his concerns on the vaccines in a podcast…Malone clarified that he was not discouraging the use of the vaccine but was providing people with as much fair information as he could about their risks. “This is a fundamental right having to do with clinical research ethics,” he said. “And so, my concern is that I know that there are risks. But we don’t have access to the data, and the data haven’t been captured rigorously enough so that we can accurately assess those risks — and therefore … we don’t really have the information that we need to make a reasonable decision.”

‘Single most qualified’ mRNA expert speaks about vaccine risks after he says YouTube banned his video, Yahoo News

As the same viral evolution that causes an annual flu season works upon this virus, it is predictably revealed that the mRNA/non-Pasteur option decreases in efficacy regarding every new strain of the virus. Thus ‘booster shots’ or new mRNA edits are necessary with every strain.

A year and a half into the pandemic process, some large sample group studies on the mRNA option begin to conclude. They find that the antibodies the immune system naturally produces to combat the virus are greatly diminished in those who elected the mRNA vaccine. In layman’s terms, the presence of the vaccine has overridden the body’s innate ability to defend itself. Thus, not only do the vaccinated effectively have no choice but to take any-and-every booster shot for any-and-every new strain ad infinitum—but with every booster shot, their ability to produce antibodies further diminishes. This effect will even further compound as they age.

So the key message from our finding is that we found that recipients of the Pfizer vaccine, those who’ve had two doses, have about 5 to 6 fold lower amounts of neutralizing antibodies…Perhaps most importantly for all of us going forward, is that we see that the older you are, the lower your levels are likely to be, and the time since you’ve had your second jab–as that times goes on–the lower your levels are also likely to be. So that’s telling us that we’re probably going to be needing to prioritize boosters for older and more vulnerable people coming up soon, especially if this new variant spreads.

Dr David Bauer of the Francis Crick Institute, Dailymail.co.uk

World governments begin to ramp up rhetoric and policy against the unvaccinated as so-called “breakthrough” cases–individuals contracting new strains of the virus despite having been vaccinated for the ‘original’ strain–begin to inundate the news. These are blamed wholesale (and rather ironically) upon the unvaccinated. Increasing deaths from the virus and from vaccine complications are convoluted, much like flu season was subsumed by the initial pandemic.

The virus now has a particularly ideal evolutionary breeding ground:

–to infect and kill those unvaccinated it can (an evolutionary deadend) –X

–to infect those unvaccinated it cannot kill (who will survive due to their natural antibodies) –>

–to infect those vaccinated it cannot kill (who will survive due to their gene edits lessening symptomatic severity) –>

–to infect and kill those vaccinated it can (whose vaccine failed in every respect) –X

The middling groups who cannot initially die (–>) trade different strains back-and-forth, some of which have significantly higher mortality and/or vaccine resistance than the original due to the dual incentive to either overcome the natural antibodies or the gene edit.

This evolutionary arms-race prompts a return to lockdowns, mask mandates, etc., as governments scramble to implement foolproof vaccine passports to effectively house-arrest the hardy unvaccinated who remain. The reason is two-fold—to stop the anticipated trading of strains between unvaxxed and vaxxed, but also to protect the vaxxed in general, whose tampered immune systems render them fragile to any interaction with an unaltered human. Thus hatred and fear of the “radioactive” unvaccinated reaches a global high (due to reasons both real and scapegoat) just before a particularly lethal strain reveals itself.

Governments slam on the breaks, destroying global supply chains, and leading to social unrest from the hungry vaccinated and unvaccinated alike. Martial law is enacted both to protect critical infrastructure from rioters and to roll out the (unfortunately named) final solution of either forcibly vaccinating everyone or executing those who continue to refuse vaccination.

Due to the chaotic context and close-range danger of the lethal strain, verification of vaccination via “papers please” methods (be it smartphone app or printed receipt) is jettisoned in favor of a long-distance visual paired with a digital convenience: a mark either upon the hand or the forehead which functions like a QR code or digital wallet public address that cannot be forged or lost. This ‘vaccine passport’ becomes pervasive across society as a portmanteau of ID, medical record, and central banking address for stimulus funds. Its presence is verified during practically all steps of transportation or financial interaction. Eventually, mandates to receive the vaccine or surrender for lethal injection are abandoned in favor of firing on anyone without the mark.

With everyone on earth subject to booster shots for the virus for the foreseeable future, and similar mRNA and/or CRISPR solutions now in vogue for any and every viral outbreak including seasonal ones, the human immune system is effectively phased out in favor of constant updates, not unlike software updates to a computer, without which it is entirely vulnerable to Day One attacks (unlike computers, the untampered immune system is designed to combat ‘Day One’ attacks).

Thus, what began as a relatively minor pandemic was actually the event horizon for homo sapien to become homo sci-fi, or cyborgs in a word. The political consequence of this dwarfs the work of Alexander III and Genghis Khan. From now on, any attempt to rebel against established systems of governance is rendered moot, because a detected rebel need only have their biological updates withheld to immediately die for lack of an immune system (or have their mark blacklisted in order to summarily starve).

mRNA Medicines – the ‘Software of Life’ …Generally, the only thing that changes from one potential mRNA medicine to another is the coding region – the actual genetic code that instructs ribosomes to make protein. Utilizing these instruction sets gives our investigational mRNA medicines a software-like quality.

Moderna

In hindsight, the serendipity of the epidemic’s outcomes with the political, social, and financial aims of international elites as laid out in previous publications such as

The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (2005) by Ray Kurzweil

The Great Reset agenda by the World Economic Forum (2020)

seems almost to defy coincidence.

Personal addendum to the thought experiment:

I write this, not because I think it will happen, but because I find it sufficiently interesting that it is even conceivable. If it were to happen, those individuals who refused the vaccine on penalty of death, not from the virus but from their own governments, would in my mind join the ranks of those who froze to death in Stalin’s Siberia for refusing his numbered prison uniforms. They did so due to aspects of their Christian faith that would be exactly comparable here: despising to be marked as slaves so long as the choice to refuse was afforded to them. However, I do detect a noticeable differentiation between them and these; the Russians could conceivably have lived to see a better time. In the case of the unvaccinated, if the thought experiment roughly followed its trajectory, their mortal choice would be far easier due to the absolute assurance that the alternative is a nightmare–an inhuman horror to anyone who finds anything admirable in our species’ existence pre-internet. Only those who believe that human nature has changed along with human technology–whose philosophy is that the best games to play are the easiest ones–could find that eventuality desirable. They are, to me, roughly comparable to The Borg; I do not mind their existence, so long as I can escape becoming one of them.

I had debated writing an in-depth exploration concerning why someone might choose to remain an untampered human being and prefer independence even unto death, but I feel too mentally tired at the moment. Frankly, I fear this is one of those subjects where, if it need be explained, it is doomed to never be comprehended. It is such a basic philosophical premise that even a child could understand it—therefore we genius adults have lost its plot entirely. In fact, ‘comprehension’ is not even the right word; this is not a matter that requires intellectual prowess. It is simply a matter of intellectual courage–the willingness to acknowledge that the right thing to do might be inconvenient (or that there is such a thing as The Right Thing). This lack of intellectual courage is the hallmark of our time. To put it very plain, we have become a bunch of pussies, and we probably deserve what comes next.

The War on Biological Terror

Fiancé Mark Tomlin described how Lucy had been supportive of the vaccine, but he’s now cautioning others to be wary of risks. “I don’t want people to be put off having a vaccine but I do want people to know that there are risks,” Tomlin stated, according to the Mail. “We’re not anti-vax. Lucy certainly wasn’t – she was so excited about getting it.”

News of Saginaw County resident Jacob Clynick’s death was spread on social media late last month, with a woman posting a picture of her nephew’s vaccine card to Twitter claiming he died after his second Covid shot. “The initial autopsy results (done Friday) were that his heart was enlarged and there was some fluid surrounding it. He had no known health problems. Was on no medications,” Tami Burages wrote. (Despite the death, Burages said she would still vaccinate her 14-year-old daughter.)

Paragraphs like these have caught my attention as of late. I wonder why it is that the relations of experimental vaccine casualties are feeling the need to effectively apologize that their loved ones died? I suppose there are two major explanations.

The first is that they believe the vaccines will save far more lives than they take, and so they would not wish for the news of their loved one’s death to cause even more deaths by promoting vaccine hesitancy. This reason is illogical in the sense that it is utterly unnecessary. Of course the vaccines save more lives than they take. If this were not the case, no one would take them; we’re dumb but we’re not stupid, etc.

The fact that this need factor in at all indicates a complete disconnect between the reality of vaccine hesitancy and the red letter “anti-vaxxer” slur. I have yet to encounter a single person who doubts that the mRNA COVID vaccines can prevent some COVID deaths, and that the number of people who either experience positive benefits or at least have a neutral reaction to said vaccines dramatically outnumbers those who are damaged or die from them.

These factors are in mass, while vaccine hesitancy is a matter of individuality. It is nearly the difference between epidemiology and general or preventative care. Both are branches of medicine, but the one prioritizes entire populations while the other prioritizes one patient at a time. Thus we descend to the philosophical core of the issue which politicians and media have so far been unable or unwilling to articulate. Do individual rights–the ability to prefer one’s own (self-determined) self-interest over others’–persist during a pandemic?

The mainstream kneejerk response to this question is obviously No. Certainly if COVID were but a little more fatal, the public could have been convinced that these vaccines should be forcibly mandated–and still may be if any variant supplies the necessary amount of mortal fear. The downside to answering No to the question of course is that you have just given up Freedom, and not on a temporary basis either. This answer renders Law and the will of the people utterly powerless before the might of biological warfare. Any would-be dictator on Earth eyeing a pesky democracy need only manufacture and release something of similarly high transmissibility and low lethality to permanently infringe human rights. Not to mention that simultaneous control over the vaccine supply chain would mean the ability to lethally inject all of one’s enemies and win in two moves, both of which could probably be done for a budget of less than a billion.

This will of course be mere sci-fi tinfoil right up until it isn’t. In the name of combating terrorism (while oddly failing to invade or even sever ties with the countries actually responsible), the U.S. government post-9/11 became the greatest menace to human liberty that has ever existed. If the surveillance infrastructure Julian Assange and Edward Snowden revealed ever falls into the wrong hands (let’s face it, it was always in the wrong hands), the catastrophe that will ensue will render every one of its engineers morally bankrupt in the eyes of history. We are simply discussing a medical comparable which is frankly simpler to achieve. It also serves as a useful comparable since the question was structured the same: Do individual rights persist during the threat of terrorism? Unfortunately, we elected to answer No on that one too.

9/11, regardless of whether it was an attack or a false flag, bestowed so much advantage upon the military-industrial complex that one would have to lie in order to argue that any major U.S. politician or general is genuinely sorry it happened. Sure, maybe they lost someone they liked, but they have most certainly cried all the way to the bank. Many picture hooded figures about a pentagram when they think of human sacrifice in return for dark empowerment. I prefer to envision the towers’ fall.

The second explanation of these postmortem apologies is that the death of their loved one is politically inexpedient, and they do not wish to be harassed for such. Social media alone would be a sufficient explanation, but the involvement of actual politics seals the deal. Due to the fact that human lives are on the line during this pandemic (kind of like they’re on the line during threats of terrorism), the White House has anointed itself as the arbiter of truth that must step in to save Americans who cannot save themselves.

White House ‘flagging’ posts for Facebook to censor over COVID ‘misinformation’

Biden accuses Facebook of ‘killing people’ amid censorship row

“planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines”

White House calling out critics of door-to-door vaccine push

How the turns table. As liberals who opposed the War on Terror were “anti-American” in light of terrorism, so conservatives who are opting to forego the vaccine are “anti-American” in light of the pandemic. One begins to suspect that we no longer have any idea what “American” means in a values-sense. The only certainty is that we have a real hard-on for using Invisible Enemies as our excuse.

A final question occurs to me at the moment. It is a Socratic one that I would ask of two sorts of people:

-Those who hate conservatives

-Those who think human overpopulation is a threat to the species

…Why are you obsessed with vaccinating those who don’t want it? If the vaccine works, you and yours should be protected from the invisible foe, while that invisible foe continues to remove your enemies from the world. You wished for less conservatives and a smaller human population in general. That wish has been granted. I would council you not to let your political zealotry (“everyone should take it!”) remove your political advantage (“the only people who took it are the ones I like”).

To do otherwise would be akin to admitting that this is a purely political rather than scientific matter, wherein you want everyone to take the vaccine–not because it may save their lives but–because it establishes their fealty to your kingdom.

Form to Imperative to Dialectic

When one does not acknowledge or even entertain the possibility of objective truth (be it decreed by gods, God, the Dao, or even the ability of humanity to occasionally comprehend an objective phenomenon with their subjective minds), morals become as vague and malleable as politics. In other words, they are there to serve a purpose (usually a self-interested purpose), not in-and-of-themselves. They never disappear entirely, of course–it is a rare thief indeed who feels no moral outrage when he himself is robbed–but beyond their immediate utility they have no independent existence.

It is likely Plato’s “world of forms” was born of such; he saw that if Love had no existence independent of the beings that experience it, it could become effectively undefinable and thus unrecoverable if ever lost. Worse yet, one might call Hate “Love” in Orwellian fashion and find no rebuke on the grounds that words are just arbitrary monkey-noises anyway. If Love was not a Form that is discoverable by but independent of the beings that interface with it, then it could be brought just as low as those beings occasionally are.

This is precisely the state of current philosophy, and we would do well to recognize that this philosophy has escaped the universities and is now roaming loose everywhere. It is no longer an abstract and academic but a deeply personal matter. Indeed, it may not be an overstatement to say that the absence of objective truth and the arbitrariness of words has taken on the cultural relevance that religion once had. Where the process of picking a social in-group once involved electing a denomination (a particular way of talking about God), one now elects a particular way of talking, period: an argot concerning one’s favorite social pet project.

The Right, as usual, is mostly reactionary and thus is limited to simple slang such as snowflake, SJW, triggered, degenerate, etc. In other words, they are always talking about their enemies. The Left are always talking about their enemies too, but they do it in terms of contrast; they delineate friend from foe by a complex series of shibboleth‘s. In the LGBTQ-XYZ crowd (something that appears to me to have become rather separate from just being gay etc), the test of purity is a comprehension of endlessly proliferating pronouns. Race/class-Andy’s do much the same with Marxist (usually not from Marx himself) ists and isms.

And while the comparable to religious linguistics seems apt, one can’t help but notice the difference be it from Left or Right. When God is one’s linguistic foundation or implication, one is always subconsciously citing a good that exists. When politics is one’s foundation/implication, one is always subconsciously citing a good that does not yet exist, or a wrong that does. Is it possible that this explains why we appear to be emotional basket-cases compared to stoical ancestors, despite having far easier lives?

To all such politic-ians (as in the word Christ-ians), classical morality takes on at the very least an annoying connotation, if not becoming the very definition of evil.

By annoying, I mean that a morality for-its-own-sake is rigid and thus does not always conveniently conform to one’s self-interest. Indeed, classical morality is inherently an inconvenience: “pick up your cross” and “desire is suffering” are not exactly preludes to having a good time.

But we are far past that; classical morality as the current definition of evil is close to being the rule rather than the exception. By this I mean that when one does not believe in objective truth, the insistence that there is and that one should conform to it will only ever appear tyrannical, judgmental, prejudicial, bigoted, etc. The first and best example is Milton’s Luciferian philosophy, wherein one intentionally elects their own subjective lies because they prefer them to the Objective Truth.

Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven.

Lucifer, Milton’s Paradise Lost

Today, the starkest but certainly not the last example is transgenderism. To briefly recap: gender dysphoria is a mental health disorder. The psychologist John Money was the first to entirely rethink gender and consequently enshrine ‘trans’ as something separate from the gender dysphoria condition. If this is the first time you’re hearing of Dr Money, a brief trip to Wikipedia is in order. Within about 30 seconds you will definitively know why you have never heard of him before, even though he single-handedly coined the terms gender identity, gender role, and sexual orientation.

I take transgenderism as my example because its linguistic roots are surprisingly simple to trace. As the whole of Christianity rests upon Christ’s resurrection, so the whole of transgenderism rests upon the semantic nuance “biological sex is not synonymous with gender.”

I’ve just pulled out my Rodale Synonym Finder from 1978, and here is what it says upon the matter: “Sex. n. 1. gender.” Ladies and gentlemen, every thesaurus before a certain recent date now contains “hate speech.” Indeed, it is no longer out of the question that I will one day be imprisoned or worse for even mentioning such. And while I do not find this a particularly appealing hill to die upon, my line in the sand was several hills ago.

To be clear, I see no need to differentiate between the words “sex” (of the biological variety) and “gender.” Their synonymous nature worked perfectly fine for circa 20,000 – 200,000 years, and I see nothing particularly impressive about Dr Money’s intellect or character to make me believe he is an existential Archimedes capable of achieving a Eureka! none ever had before. If ever I do profess a differentiation between the two, it will only be in a Winston “do it to Julia!” context. Though I hope it will sound more like “THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!”

Like any true conservative, I am suspicious of any sudden, much less frantic, change. And when that frantic change is being perpetuated by people who openly declare that they do not acknowledge the existence of objective truths, the glass on my bullshit-meter shatters entirely. To simultaneously say: “Look here, we’ve found the new way, the better way, the only way” AND “There is no foundation upon which to determine the truth”, is the gibbering of gremlins from the abyss. Since they admittedly dwell in a universe wherein language’s only purpose is manipulation, whenever they speak I safely conclude they are attempting to manipulate me.

Such is the nightmare Plato anticipated. And, in pondering how to remain somewhat sane in an approaching social situation reminiscent of I Am Legend (the book, anyway), I am compelled to revisit such basics. We know the necessity of the Forms, but what of the morals themselves? Why should one say “Not my will, but thine be done” rather than giving in to the Luciferian temptation? Spirituality reasons aside (of which I suspect there are plenty), it can perhaps be summarized with one word: imperative. Kant’s categorical imperative is the secular solution (although it is doubtful that a secular solution is at all sufficient).

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

Which, of course, is just a fancier way of saying The Golden Rule. With Kant’s imperative, one need not be dragged into the weeds of debating whether an act is wrong in isolation. Instead, actions are simply dealt with in terms of their real-world consequences. “Only harming one’s self” is a fiction. Thus, when one looks back with mystification at the alleged immorality of non-heterosexuality, one need only recollect that non-hetereosexuality as a universal law would end the species.

What is there to be proud of in divorcing sexuality from pair-bonding procreation and thus the family and thus the species itself? Nothing. And lest we only pick on the non-hetereosexual, the same exact thing can be said of pornography and birth control writ large. Homosexuality has historically been persecuted because it historically existed; the other two are so new we still have no idea what we’re doing, like cavemen with a burning branch. We want the warmth but not the forest fire.

However hard one tries to render morality purely secular, purely utilitarian, there is some mysterious quality about it which is upwards-borne, tugging the mundane toward the transcendent. After all, it is quite idealistic and not at all practical to expect sexuality should be a matter of pride or anything more than animal hedonism. Thus Kant is merely an appetizer where God is the main course. That is precisely why I treat these merely as a personal foundation rather than any kind of solution. If anything in the future is certain, it is that the majority of internet-connected humanity will never willingly return to the “yoke” of God’s authority.

No matter how hellish they consequently render the world, it is still better than serving to those whose main (or perhaps even sole) personality trait is that of rebellion. Rebellion against what? Anything less than absolute freedom. Just as political “progress” is a paradoxical continuum (from casting down the censors in the name of free speech to becoming censors in a secular holy war against “hate speech”), so is this freedom-for-its-own sake that is a freedom from rather than a freedom to. Freedom to is constructive; one has some work in mind which their hand is being kept from. Freedom from is often resentful, and all too easily devolves to the emotional level of a temper-tantrum. In extremis, freedom from may even preclude freedom to, for any and all necessities may eventually be conceived of as burdens–even the burden of life itself. Death is the only absolute freedom–and even then, “What dreams may come?”

This idea of being so resentful that one wishes to be freed from life entirely–suicidality, in a word–occurs to me in a related but quite nuanced way. It occurs to me whenever I think in terms of the current buzzword, “elites.” On the one hand I am skeptical of this term, due to being so loaded with conspiratorial connotations. There may well be cabals (most likely thinktanks and NGOs) that think of themselves in terms of Illuminates, perhaps even literal Luciferians, but I very much doubt that one such small group decisively dominates the planet, if only due to having to vie with competition and upstarts. That isn’t to say that such a monopoly is impossible–just unlikely and extremely hard-won.

Nevertheless, there seem to be a few commonalities that all such creepy elites today would generally agree upon. The main one is the idea of overpopulation. This term is often dog-whistled in terms of “global warming,” “environmental concerns,” etc. This is rather amusing when one considers that the persons who most often invoke such terms are the captains and regulators of Industry. If they’re so damn worried about it they could very well shut down a factory or two. No, their real concern is what happens when there are so many plebs on the planet that it becomes difficult for such overlords to continue enjoying themselves. The most frank among them are currently looking to set sail for Mars before this possibility becomes a certainty. But one gets the sense that most of them have no intentions of going anywhere.

So, the thought experiment becomes this. You have generational, dynastic wealth, high-IQ, a psychopathic ego, a sociopathic conscience, and plenty of time on your hands. You believe with fair assurance the world is X number of years away from being overpopulated to the extent that global farmland will falter and fail. You believe the species will not survive such an event. What do you do?

Is it truly “tinfoil conspiracy” to suppose that such persons would resort to a literal Hegelian dialectic, especially of the three stages variety? Problem. Reaction. Solution. Cause the problem, having anticipated the reaction, so-as to provide a predetermined solution. Perhaps the most well-known literary example of this dialectic is the conclusion of Alan Moore’s Watchmen. Therein, consummate elite Ozymandias hoaxes an effectual “alien invasion” (killing most of New York City in the process), knowing this crisis will cause the nuclear disarmament and political reorganization he desires.

Like all things of a conspiratorial flavor, it takes a slight squint to make out. But when I consider the unlikely rapidity of these aforementioned cultural changes despite the stubbornly-unchanging constitution of human nature, and the byproduct they all have in common (a dissolution of family and nationality which would tend to result in less births and less geopolitical competition over time), I have to wonder. One does not necessarily need an Ozymandias in order to fan the flames of mass psychosis. But when the mass psychosis coincidentally checks the To Do list of most every elitist busybody alive today, one must at least marvel at their devilish good luck. And one very much wonders whether they will allow their children to be consumed by the psychoses they so readily encourage in others’.

Frantic Novelty vs The Inner Child

If I had to contrast myself with the time I’m living in (always a difficult & rather vain thing to do), I would have to settle upon the fact that I more-or-less remember who I was as a child and feel that person is with me still. A less fanciful way of saying this might be to say, I have certainly grown older, but I have not definitively changed.

To some I’m sure this statement smells of immaturity, and perhaps it does. I never underwent the complete break with my past that is usually initiated either by coming to detest the persons and places of one’s childhood, or worse yet having those things blighted by traumatic connotations.

Quite the opposite, to the extent that my sense of nostalgia is not confined to particularly pleasant aspects of my past (beloved movies, games, etc). Rather than being confined such externals, my sense of nostalgia is most potent and profound when I think of who I was then–all the wrongs I had not done, or was not yet aware that anyone had done. In short, I liked myself and the world better, and that is what I am nostalgic for.

This nostalgia seems to be some subconscious bedrock, for I am usually conscious of it only after waking from a deep sleep. Then I can briefly catch glimpses of what this Original Me would think of whatever stimuli Current Me is nocturnally processing. This is not necessarily a new revelation–since my teenage years I have occasionally realized that a secondary voice occasionally commentates my dreams, and that this voice is most certainly Original Me–as unchanged and intact as when I left him.

However, this most recent instance was an emotional record-breaker. In short, I woke to realize that Current Me was processing a popular young p*rnstar. Readers are welcome to giggle until it is understood that she was–at least in this case–being thought of as an actual person, a fellow stranger, rather than a piece of meat. And for perhaps a minute I felt entirely overwhelmed by grief on her behalf, exactly as Original Me would have felt upon the subject.

I’m aware that this is strange in general, much less in the context of the here-and-now. Doubtlessly there is even some wretch out there who is liable to feel angry at me that I would feel unsolicited pity for her, what with her absolute autonomy as a strong, independent, empowered woman etc, ad nauseam. Well, take it up with 1998.

Nonetheless, this strangeness settled me upon a rather relevant word: continuity. However much older I become, however much differentiated from Original Me (almost always for the worst), I cannot shake a sense of continuity with him.

How many feel similarly today about anything? Where is the continuity in the postmodern first world? I must confess, at times it feels as though everyone, be it millennials or even boomers, have been struck by some kind of pre-internet amnesia. It is not that they have no memories, but that they seem to have negligible emotional continuity with those memories. Not only do they barely remember their Original Self–they could not earnestly testify “that is me.” Whatever comprises “me” has become a shifting sand rather than a firm foundation.

Now here is something to settle upon that seems of general relevance rather than personal eccentricity. To have one’s sense of self alterable with any ease–a matter of weeks or months rather than years, much less a matter of personal choice rather than colossal external interference–strikes me as effectively ahistorical. Lives were upset at a greater rate, but their underlying self was far slower to change. Genghis Khan could kill everyone you know, but if he deigned to let you live, your day-to-day activities and internal identity need not alter hardly at all. But now that we have convinced ourselves that we have progressed past such Genghis-like instances (haha), the rule is reversed; in the absence of external problems, we find the internal identity proliferating near-infinite issues, all of them screaming to be resolved, and resolved expediently.

Surely this harmonizes with the sudden resurgence of identity politics in the 1st world after a period circa ’70s through ’00s wherein race and sexual preference became rather boring and shallow criteria compared to what an individual chose to do with their newfound liberation. For any less-than-bright readers, I am not saying that this was a utopian period devoid of its own issues. I am saying the average person was far less likely to think of their or others’ color or orientation as the primary or even relevant aspect of their personhood. To put it another way–there is only one group of people I remember hearing of before the internet who based their entire identity around their race and sex preferences: white supremacists. Now, the abhorrence of this group is louder than ever, yet their tactics appear to have been adopted universally.

Regarding race, there was a time when minorities would have been insulted by the concept of Affirmative Action. “What? The fact that white folks have a head-start means I need a hand-out? Screw that. Watch me succeed anyway,” would have been the gist. Pride, in a word (either in one’s race or just in one’s self). Now, not only is Affirmative Action pervasive, but its equal-opposite has slithered in. Not only do the oppressed minorities need a hand-out to equalize the playing field; we should also be sure to cut the privileged majority down to size whenever possible. One wonders how much longer Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron story will be fictional. (P.S. Isn’t it strange that those who believe in no higher power than evolution are also those most interested in tampering with zero-sum competition? Darwin, Darwin, why hast thou forsaken me?)

Regarding sexuality, one need only consider the late explosion of non-heterosexual identification in nowhere but the first world. In my 2017 essay “Eros Fled” I supposed that this was a natural phenomenon, whereby when nature senses more babies are not needed–or even that more babies are needed but that they would be wasted upon this particular population–it “finds a way.” This is still not a terrible supposition, especially if new data regarding the extinction of human sperm within the century is accurate. However, one suspects nature is not quite as hamfisted as the recent examples of adults long past puberty who decide to “transition.” While I cannot rule out that someone could be “transgender” their entire life and eventually “come out,” I will absolutely call bullshit on the phenomenon as a spur-of-the-moment matter. Either the ability of plastics to tamper with hormones is much more potent than even the most alarmist of researchers is reporting, or this is an internet-inspired phenomenon, wherein people who otherwise would have continued their gendered existence have decided to plumb the depths of their potential identity until they strike upon something trendy. This does not necessarily mean that such identity-revamps are done primarily for the approval of others, for likes and clicks. No, the change itself is sufficient reward. When one feels utterly disconnected from their past and thus unmoored in their present, pioneering radically new futures is the only obvious escape from the undertow of nihility. Running from God usually concludes in the belly of a whale.

Perhaps this frantic pursuit of novelty is the seed of a new religion. Whereas antique religions all supposed that the answers to the mysteries of the present lay in our mysterious past, this new religion clearly believes all answers lie within our ineffable future. Such is the constant acceleration that makes possible the mental discordance of today’s 1st world, such as (to take but one grotesque example) effete liberals, proud feminists all, wholeheartedly supporting and importing Islam, perhaps the most conservative and female-oppressing ideology extant today. There is an extent of open-mindedness that causes one’s brain to fall out. (Note: given the choice between an extreme leftwing and average Islam, I would likely take the latter, seeing as Muhammad has produced far more lasting culture and innovation than Marxist tripe ever will; I use the example only to indicate strange bedfellows).

And while such novelty, such progress-for-its-own-sake, certainly renders the world or at least the internet a gibbering abyss of controversy, gossip, and self-satisfaction, one cannot help but notice that it also makes things suspiciously simple on a philosophical level, rather like the “wishful thinking” religion is accused of. The philosophical foundation is simply: old=bad, new=good. Which of course is the same as saying anything conservative is bad and anything progressive is good. This is reiterated infinitely as though it is some great discovery, when in fact it is simply Presentism enshrined. I suspect these acolytes might take to self-harm if they could but see how stupid and ugly their descendants will think them, as they now think of anyone who came before. Such, I suppose, is the new zero-sum competition: the dead are losers, not necessarily on a biological, but certainly on a philosophical level. Ha. Imagine having lived before humanity because so enlightened about X Y Z.

Of course, this completely ignores the “privilege” of being able to stand upon giants’ shoulders–an obvious product of being historically ignorant. But even more abhorrent, it pretends that one would be as progressively enlightened as they are now in less fortuitous circumstances. Similar to how most flavor-of-the-month occultists decide that they were Napoleon in a past life (never Napoleon’s barber or cook), everyone seems to be under the impression that they would have been the Gutenberg or Luther or Wilberforce or Lincoln of their day. The truth of course is that if anyone is relatively mediocre now, they would have been even more mediocre then due to worse diet, healthcare, machinery, etc. That is not even to touch upon the fact that tweeting a correct opinion and risking the gallows are non-overlapping magisteria.

Strangest of all, the morality of the new religion is simply the absence of moral values or value judgements. It is not about what one does, but about what one does not do. It is as though they took Jesus’s proscriptive fragment “judge not lest ye but judged,” and left his overwhelmingly prescriptive whole. This could even relate back to the progressive sycophancy for Islam; their taboo is clearly not “do not oppress women.” Their value is “do not oppress women unless combating the oppression of women would involve critiquing some other minority.” The weak must be protected, but only when it’s politically expedient or energetically easy. A white man must not oppress a woman–unless he coverts to Islam. Then it’s different. Such logical leaps and bounds–precisely the sort that children would never think up–indicates the hollowness at the center of it all. It is the appearance of courage without the necessity of courage, like wearing a mask precisely because it looks different from one’s real face.

Dostoevsky negatively rendered this religion, “all is permitted.” Crowley positively rendered it, “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” In my most recent publication Dinosaur, I rendered it, “all is permitted–except to question that all is permitted.”

The morality of children is the morality of fairy tales. There is right and there is wrong, and if you have difficulty seeing it, that speaks volumes about you more-so than it critiques the story. This grey pall, which races frantically from “issue” to “issue” as though the realization that the world is imperfect were some great Eureka moment, is the province of corrupted adults looking to excuse their corruption. It is a political morality (even the Devil knows scripture). It is the explanation for all of the madness that the next two decades hold, wherein the Hegelian dialectic* (cause the problem so-as to provide the predetermined solution) is set to attain full velocity. I hope only to shepherd the Original Me through whatever awaits us. Perhaps this Current Me was indeed necessary, if only to insulate him.

*Mark Carney, Klaus Schwab, Agustín Carstens–names to keep an eye out for.

#Cancelled: What the Center-Right is Missing

[the people’s] object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, while the former only desire not to be oppressed.

Machiavelli

Cancellation Online

When #cancelculture first entered the vernacular, it was perhaps only deserving of an eyeball-roll. An adult comparable to cyberbullying–where the solution was either to turn off one’s device for the day or simply refuse to apologize until the digital mob dispersed–it arguably provided a Rightwing comparable to the whiny complaints of “triggered snowflakes” on the Left. The endless fodder it lent to Rightist talking heads such as Ben Shapiro and Stephen Crowder even rendered it rather insincere–everyone needs a hobby, and complaining about affluent conservatives being #cancelled (or jeering at Lefties being “DESTROYED with FACTS and LOGIC”) was ours.

Other than a few worst-case exceptions, wherein said mob went after the #cancellee’s very livelihood by doxxing them and pressuring their employers, this state of affairs appears to have continued uninterrupted until 2018’s Alex Jones affair (here and here). In roughly a day, the internet’s most infamous Rightwing conspiracy theorist was expunged from all significant social media platforms–only his homebase at Infowars.com was left intact. In a single-stroke, the single-mindedness of Big Tech was confirmed, and with it, the defense of “Platform-Not-Publisher” was called into doubt.

Said defense, briefly, is as follows. If social media companies are platforms, they are not responsible for what individual users post, which is a great legal boon whenever content of questionable legality ends up on said platforms. If they are publishers, they are responsible for all content on their platforms. The definition becomes very murky indeed when the platform acts like a publisher by deciding to remove that which it does not like, even though that content is perfectly legal. In the common tongue, this subject is most often invoked when an average liberal defends platform #cancellation by saying, “they’re a private company; they can do what they want” (the one and only case where you will find the Left habitually defending/shilling for corporate rights).

An even simpler way to put it may be found in the statement, “Don’t love it? Leave it.” Such was the implication whenever social media companies appeared to be biased against the Right; you may not be allowed on Twitter or Facebook anymore, but you are perfectly welcome to build your own platform that will be hospitable to your views. This continued to have some validity even after Alex Jones’ and David Icke’s #cancellations; their personal websites were left up, their products available for sell, etc. It diminished the size of their soapbox in the public square, but it didn’t cut out their tongues.

However, this too was shown to be a sham during early 2021’s Parler incident (here and here). Parler was one such case of literally “not loving it and leaving it” and “building one’s own platform”; it quickly became a refugee camp for all of the center-Right that had been #cancelled off the larger platforms. When Amazon Web Services, the provider for Parler’s very website, decided with very little warning to discontinue business with Parler, the entire platform was (temporarily) relegated to Winston’s memory-hole. The message was clear. Big Tech has no intention of letting its ideological opposition build their own platforms if they can help it, and, emboldened by the refusal of incompetent or insidious U.S. leadership to enforce anti-trust / anti-monopoly laws against them (or legally define them as publishers), they no longer have any incentive to hide that fact.

Cancellation Offline

Still, one may continue to sleep well at night with the knowledge that all this drama and political pettiness is confined to the internet–right? Unfortunately, #cancellation has escaped the lab of the internet and begun to spread IRL (in real life). Indeed, it is a massive mistake to assume that such segregation between unreal and real, digital and analog, still exists in a reliable, predictable, or enforceable sense. And even if it does, it is certainly not long for this world.

Some of my favorite recent examples, other than the pulling down of monuments, are the #cancellations of Shakespeare (here and here) and Dr Seuss (here and here and here). Roald Dahl’s family also got in on the fun by self-flagellating over their cash-cow’s wrongthink (here and here), while the likes of Disney and HBO have wishy-washily began removing or at least restricting some of their classics, ranging from Peter Pan to Gone with the Wind.

The common motives shared amongst these scatter-shot #cancellations are fairly well-established. It’s usually one of two things. Either, Representation Of is being confused with Endorsement Of, or one is engaging in Presentism (judging the past by present standards). However, I do not wish to dwell overly-long on either as many center-Right pundits do, because I do not believe the cultural upheaval these varied instances indicate is merely due to such logical inconsistencies and fallacies. It appears to me that the issue at hand is infinitely larger than a mere misunderstanding.

#Cancelculture did not happen in a vacuum. Like everything else of importance, it has a history and a legacy that can be traced. In some sense it has always been with us; the devices of rhetoric to strawman and ad hominen one’s enemy are older than the ancient Greeks, and Machiavelli enshrined such political machinations in his The Prince. Acolytes and aftermaths of Marx such as the Frankfurt School and Vienna Circle were quite open about the ways in which Reality Itself must be made utterly pliable and redefinable if the revolutionary utopia is to be achieved. Nietzsche, the leftist existentialist who accidentally inspired Hitler, taught that humanity’s only “salvation” is to generate its own meaning(s)–an ahistoric and quite possibly apocalytic proposition. Saul Alinsky, political mentor to the Clinton dynasty, modernized Machiavelli in his Rules for Radicals by summarizing that the whole of politics is to A. have no rules of one’s own and B. make one’s enemy have, and live up to, their own rules. This can be witnessed in real time as shrewd Democrats politically beat clueless good-ole-boy Republicans to a bloody pulp.

Additionally, every American and European college student for the past half-century has at least been cursorily initiated into the postmodern/deconstructionist cult of Foucault and Derrida, whose teachings can be rendered roughly as this: in the godless Darwinian universe, there is no objective Truth or inherent Meaning; therefore, every attempt to proclaim or even suggest such Truth or Meaning, be it in civilizations, artworks, or language itself, is a manipulative lie–a stratagem of game theory to move bananas from one ape to another. Therefore, “salvation” is to destroy all such constructs, leaving ourselves enlightened from any such value judgements. I refer to the latter two in particular as the “Evil be thou my Good” crowd, after Milton’s Lucifer.

So, while we continue to mentally masterbate to the cheeky cleverness of Shapiros and Crowders, who snicker at the (admittedly, very many) “useful idiot” leftists who spend their whole lives effectively defending the proposition that “the truth is that there is no truth,” we are utterly missing the fact that whether they are right or wrong does not matter. Debate itself is predicated on the good-faith principle that one idea can be shown objectively superior to another. The postmodernist/deconstructionist dwells in a subjective, Lebowskian universe wherein absolutely everything is “just, like, your opinion, man.” Their credo is that of morose gods and mediocre parents: it is, because I say so. This is a mindset that quite literally cannot be reasoned with. And it is being wielded to great effect by big-brained ideologues who are more than willing to let resentful plebeians parrot such soul-destroying propaganda. These elites’ own children, of course, will never be exposed to it–or, if they are, it will only be as an opportunity to gloat at how the low IQ may be incentivized to kill themselves.

So, I humbly suggest that we stop marveling at what our postmodernist/deconstructionist neighbor or nephew or niece or cousin or child has just posted to Facebook, and start thinking about what to do when they eventually send armed thugs to our doorsteps. If you think that is not the trajectory we are currently on, it’s time to be an adult, hit pause on Netflix, and read The Gulag Archipelago. “It could never happen here” is a fallacy as bad or worse than those the far-Left have pledged allegiance to.

“Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”

Solzhenitsyn

On Dr Seuss’s #cancel-ling

Are you worried, dear, about Doctor Seuss,
When there’s a Hunter Biden on the loose?
He’s a bagman all across the land
From swampy D.C. to old Iran
And he belongs in a pillory
Right next to Hillary
For the unencrypted emails he did type
While puffing upon his crack pipe

Are you worried, dear, about Doctor Seuss,
When there’s a Joe Biden on the loose?
When not sniffing little girls’ hair
He can be found, oh, where?
Excusing Chinese genocide cuz
Things are just different over there

Are you worried, dear, about Doctor Seuss,
When those who don’t read or write rule the roost?
You’d never trust them to babysit
But for sending teens to war they’re fit?
Their money-laundering puts the mob to shame
But for their trite speeches we give acclaim

Are you burning, dear, the Doctor’s books
Because you crave approval, and adoring looks?
Then you are the history we repeat
For we read it only by flame in the street.

-CLW

Mandatory Vaccination

USA Today has finally let the other shoe drop, and I’d like to commend the authors (three professors of medicine, law, and bioethics) on being frank. It’s refreshing.

Defeat COVID-19 by requiring vaccination for all. It’s not un-American, it’s patriotic.

Make vaccines free, don’t allow religious or personal objections, and punish those who won’t be vaccinated. They are threatening the lives of others.

Unlike most opinion pieces today, riddled with intentional and unintentional vagueness, this one leaves me with only one question: what punishment do you have in mind? (They list a few ideas, but none that would totally contain potential spreading).

Because these professors take the example of conscientious objectors versus draft dodgers, I suppose that is where one must start. So we’re probably talking about massive fines (quarter-of-a-million) or imprisonment. Actually, considering most Americans do not nor ever will have that kind of cash on hand (especially since we’ve just nuked our economy due to this very same fear of death), imprisonment is probably the only feasible option.

So, to the professor of bioethics in particular, I would like to further narrow down the question: How is it ethical to imprison unvaccinated persons together during a pandemic? The subtext of course being that this all but guarantees they will contract C*VID19, whereas they would have otherwise been playing the odds, like every other animal during every other outbreak of anything, ever. Or, is the plan a house arrest, and if so, how would it be enforced? We are, after all, in the midst of #abolishthepolice. Are the brownshirt volunteers already organized to guard these house arrests? And how are we going to denote the homes of the deplorables? A spray-painted Star of David across the doorposts, perhaps?

But one doubts the logistics and/or bravery required to enforce house arrest, so we’re back to that insane, crazy, no-good, #cancelled Alex J*nes’s territory with his “FEMA camps will be converted into concentration camps” scenario. Boy, oh boy! Is anyone else just waiting for the 2020 alien invasion at this point? Just to clarify: assuming any such concentration or imprisonment isn’t a death camp outright (a rather generous concession at this point in the nation’s political discourse), all of the filthy unvaccinated will catch C*VID19, so the implied policy is this: If you will not let the government save you, it will do its very best to kill you instead. A nanny state worthy of Casey Anthony. And a fitting homage to Japanese internment–ostensibly permissible this time since it isn’t racial in its discrimination.

I must admit, when I wrote about the American church being wholly unprepared for persecution (and the possibility of the long awaited Mark of the Beast doubling as some vaccine/passport/business license portmanteau) last week, I wasn’t expecting such a sudden manifestation. But such is the world of the singularity, I suppose–a new reality with each morning’s dawning. So let’s get Big Picture again–and this time we’ll deal with being an American in addition to being a Christian.

When the Antichrist comes, he brings peace (albeit one eventually revealed to be false or temporary). So, right off the bat we know that anyone who does not take his Mark is going to fall prey to a Patriot Act & NDAA reasoning: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Worded slightly differently, this simply means: go with the flow or get dashed against the rocks. It’s a kind of National Security gaslighting, wherein the citizens must convince their government that they are not a threat (guilty until proven innocent) rather than the other way around. In philosophical terms, this takes Hobbes’ Leviathan (the state as mutual protector, whom loses the right to fealty in proportion to the external harm it fails to protect its citizens from–or causes to them internally) and inverts it. The individuals whom were to be protected by their fealty must now protect the state’s interests with a self-sacrificial fealty that defeats the state’s very purpose. I would term this inversion, ‘state for its own sake.’

Somewhere in here lies the all-too-real consequences of differing ideologies that our often impotent partisan bickering has obscured over the last few decades. A significant portion of this country is and has been all but begging for a Leftwing, quasi-Marxist ‘state for its own sake,’ wherein they are perfectly content to throw out the Constitution (the mutual protection compact) so-long as doing so accomplishes the unironic utopia that they have in mind. One need only listen to them for a few minutes to gather a few things. One, they are solipsists (other people are not genuinely real to them; they simply react with others on a you-make-me-feel good, you-make-me-feel-bad basis). And two, this solipsistic lack of imagination renders them incapable of understanding the complexities of a society that is inherently comprised of self-interested individuals. In other words, it is easy for them to flippantly say, Just give everyone free food, because they can imagine themselves being gifted a lifetime supply of free food. But what they cannot possibly imagine is the incredible (indeed, currently impossible) collaboration between individuals that would be necessary to achieve such a Star-Trekian feat. Another way of summarizing them would be to say: they know what feels good, therefore they believe they know what is good as a matter of course.

Contrast this, if you would, with the classical view I attempted to sketch in the aforementioned Christianity piece. This is certainly the less feel-good of the two worldviews, for it can be summarized as:

  • the acknowledgement and acceptance of inherent pain/difficulty
  • an economics of scarcity (and indeed, the determination of value via scarcity), be it scarcity of resources, time (i.e., the realization that all flesh must die), or even talent (men are obviously not equal to one another in a literal sense)
  • a belief in Transcendence (something greater than wretched, mortal mankind) derived, not just from religious dogma, but from man’s very desire for Something More, in contrast to all other animals that are truly adapted to this environment and thus do not experience discontent within it

Christianity is firmly planted upon or rooted within this classical view. It differs from the pagan classics only in that it 1. depicts Transcendence coming down to man, instead of man (largely in vain) aspiring upwards to it & 2. in doing so, it offers a vicarious solution, wherein Transcendence gifts itself to us precisely because of our inability to perfectly grasp it ourselves.

Consequently, the political difference between these two views can be summed up in one word: Trust.

The Constitution, while not inherently Christian, at every opportunity elects the classical view: Men are fallible and corruptible, entropy and degradation are the rule rather than the exception, and, in spite of (or even because of) this, Transcendence may flourish when cultivated and guarded. This abject lack of trust in human nature is not self-flagellation, but vigilance: if we are going to lay our hands upon the Good and True, we must remain ever aware of the fact that we are not naturally good or truthful. This ‘Transcendent Cynicism’ is particularly evident in Benjamin Franklin, whom to the question of what sort of government the United States would be, famously responded:

A republic…if you can keep it.

He was the oldest of the founding fathers; indeed, compared to the others he was more a founding grandfather. He had seen more politicking as ambassador to France than many of the others put together had or ever would see (remember, quite a few of them retired from their posts back to their farms, as opposed to the current life-long bureaucrats we’ve become accustomed to). In this he was as internally balanced as his external ‘Renaissance Man’ accomplishments suggest; he was undoubtedly a hangable Liberal in his time, but he never forgot a curmudgeonly distrust for the nature of man that a classical education bequeaths. Some of the Constitutional whippersnappers were undoubtedly less cynical (the currently celebrated Hamilton being one), but nonetheless they all followed his and Jefferson’s advice about checks and balances, separation of powers, etc.

The consequence of their political distrust is this most prosperous of all nations. Yet, like all comfortable individuals or groups, our vigilance has waned. We’ve grown doughy and dull and drank a bit too much of our own Koolaid about acceptance and diversity and Being Nice at any cost. Those who have studied the fall of Rome cannot help but see similarities; it almost appears that decadent societies willfully commit collective suicide, be it out of despair or to let new mutations flourish. Personally, I cannot help but see this opinion piece as another such example, wherein three men whom have ostensibly flourished at the teat of American classical values (and two of whom likely took the classical Hippocratic Oath to do no harm) call for those very values to be trampled in favor of the State for its Own Sake.

Let me clarify that last sentence, as I fear it’s easy to miss why I so confidently assert that these professors are of the State for its Own Sake. It isn’t just because they are chucking the Constitution in favor of what’s currently in vogue among Coastal elites / the DNC. It’s because they trust the motivations of their State and themselves in this matter wholeheartedly. In other words, these men (whom are, at least in their careers, clearly capable of parsing great complexities) have here treated of an incredibly complex issue–perhaps the most complex we have faced since the Civil Rights movement–in roughly ten pithy and self-assured paragraphs. They write as though they are the God they almost certainly do not believe in. The tone of their confidence is so perfect that it at first reads as though they are totally devoid of ego (a trick of masterful rhetoric, not unlike Lucifer’s dialogue in Job). One would think that such intelligent men would approach this grim subject with a certain trepidation, perhaps even fear and trembling. But no, they have the solution and they’re here to bequeath it to the otherwise helpless plebs. This is the best evidence of their anti-classical, State for its Own Sake persuasion. The same may be seen from Marx all the way down to Alinsky: prose without compromise, concession, quandary, or, to an eerie degree, curiosity. They do not set their pen to paper until their minds are wholly made up. For them, writing is not an exploration but a declamation. A single word for this might be, simply, propaganda. (All sides of political arguments utilize propaganda as the dictionary defines it, but, as you are currently witnessing, the classical persuasion is far more likely to make concession and generally not act as though it is God’s Satan’s gift to the world).

This clinical form of persuasion puts me in mind of T.S. Eliot’s quip about the world ending with a whimper rather than a bang. It strikes me that, if some Antichrist figure were to arise in the present moment, it would most likely not be Nostradamus’s ‘great squawker Hissler’ (H*tler). That style is too militant and demanding to seduce our obese and anemic collective. No; if he were to come today his would be a voice that states with sultry bedside manner, ‘Please remain calm; there’s nothing you can do. Just leave it to the professionals.’ Certainly that is what is being asked in the USA Today piece. Stop resisting. Just do it. Be reasonable. We’re just doing our jobs. A standard-fare speech to the guards of every gulag ever.

To tie a bow on all of this mess…

  • I don’t know if the C*VID19 vaccine will actually be mandatory.
  • I don’t know if it will be based on Pasteur’s theory of antibodies, or the gene-editing of the mRNA approach.
  • I don’t know if it will be a one-and-done or endless boosters as antibodies fade and mutations form.
  • I don’t know if there is anything truly special about C*VID19, or if we’ll start mandating similar vaccine regimens for anything and everything that could possibly send human beings where they are going (the grave) a little earlier than expected.
  • I don’t know if the labs developing these vaccines are ethical and moral, profit-driven, or a mixture of both.
  • I don’t know if these vaccines are actually safe, or if we’re going to be guinea pigs for side-effects that won’t be fully understood for years to come.
  • I don’t know if taking such a vaccine is significantly less dangerous than just taking my chances with C*VID19.
  • I don’t know but that I might feel the same even if C*VID19 were considerably more fatal.
  • I don’t know if this would be THE Mark of the Beast or just a dress rehearsal (conditioning a populace to the general idea).

Here’s what I do know:

  • I don’t trust strangers or human nature in general.
  • The only entity I trust unquestionably is the Lord God Almighty.
  • I am definitely going to die, one way or another, now or later.
  • Some values are more important than prolonging a life destined to end anyway.
  • Between being ‘patriotic’ with a pulse or dead with a deity, I’ll take the latter, considering life is ‘a single page bookended by eternities…’
  • A man chooses. A slave obeys. -Andrew Ryan, Bioshock

 

 

NMAAHC & The Pendulum

I was recently amused to learn that Washington D.C.’s National Museum of African American History and Culture has taken it upon themselves to define ‘whiteness. My first thought was, surprisingly, from the leftist parlance: cultural appropriation. My next thought: Please tell me no Anglo-Saxon-themed museum has responded to this by defining ‘blackness.’ Yet, however ill-conceived or ill-fated this attempt to define may prove, my knee-jerk reaction to it was ultimately unbefitting of the attempt’s gravity. Like individuals in Sherlock’s presence, a great deal of useful information can be extrapolated from them, despite the fact that it is not the information they hoped to convey.

Perhaps the most visceral part of the definition, a graphic titled ‘Aspects and Assumptions of White Culture in the United States,’ has very recently been removed. Thankfully, I had a suspicion that this might occur, so I saved it in order to reproduce it here under Fair Use. You may find it at the end of this post.

To summarize that graphic, it defines the main aspects of whiteness as: individualism, the nuclear family, the Scientific Method, Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian/European culture, Protestant work ethic, and (paraphrasing to condense) capitalist ambition/competition.

Despite the fact that there is nothing controversial or surprising within these aspects, I found myself having to re-read them several times. After all, I was not reading a web page by a white supremacist group–this was produced by an organization rather the opposite (one hopes, anyway). So why, when I was expecting to be chastised or at least criticized for my ‘whiteness,’ was I being complimented at every turn? I considered and quickly ruled out that I was being patronized. No, the authors are quite sincere. The plain fact of it is that the NMAAHC meant for me to feel critiqued by these aspects. To them, these aspects are insults. Cue Led Zeppelin’s ‘Communication Breakdown.’

Rather than laud any of these aspects–seeing as how they have already been so thoroughly explained and defended in Tarnas’s Passion of the Western Mind, Pontynen and Miller’s Western Culture at the American Crossroads, and (less intellectually but more viscerally) in the cultural triptych formed by the King James Bible, the Complete Shakespeare, and the Lives of Plutarch–I would like to briefly dwell on their opposite or alternative. I would render this list as: collectivist, unscientific, anti-work and/or anti-goal-oriented, pagan, socialistic, no emphasis on the value of time in accordance with its finite nature (RIP supply & demand), group AKA mob or vigilante ‘justice,’ and devoid of logico-literary-communication.

Now, perhaps it is just me, but when I stare at the list of anti-‘whiteness’ aspects we’ve just constructed, it seems to me that we have merely described the Bronze Age. Now, I have nothing against that Age objectively. Subjectively I would only return to it kicking and screaming. But objectively I suppose I’m glad it happened, what with the linearity of time. I’m not going to dwell on this Bronze Age issue much more, because I don’t want to strawman the NMAAHC by pretending they are calling for the opposite of their ‘whiteness.’ Certainly they are not, because by their own definition of ‘whiteness,’ American museums themselves are arguably a product of ‘whiteness’, and thus they as an institution would have to disband in order to accomplish their own strawman-goal. Since they have not, we may assume that is not their goal (unless they are blatant hypocrites).

None-the-less, the fact remains that they are either:

  • passive-aggressively critiquing the aspects of ‘whiteness’ without providing viable alternatives
  • or, implying the alternatives to ‘whiteness’ by defining ‘whiteness’ and leaving one to imagine its opposites as we just have.

In the first case, they would effectively be those pseudo-revolutionaries who know how to destroy with no intention or ingenuity to create afterwards. In the second case, they would be akin to what I can only render as Rousseauian primitivists–viewing the Bronze Age as more romantic than the USA’s present situation, while lacking the character to voluntarily abandon their present situation ala the Amish, or Chris McCandless, or immigration to another country closer to their ideal. I will go no further in psychoanalyzing them, since it is impossible to narrow down which option is more likely from afar.

Besides, these two possibilities are roughly comparable in the following sense. The first is like a petulant child that breaks but cannot fix; the second is like a petulant child that dreams but will not do. Both, in adults, are states of spiritual dwarfism, reeking of the resentment that Nietzsche lampooned as:

You preachers of equality, the tyrannomania of impotence clamors thus out of you for equality: your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue.

Actually, pagan Nietzsche perhaps doesn’t go far enough. I believe there is another quote more consistent with the latent resentfulness herein, when one considers the absolute havoc that would portend a Bronze Age-ified United States:

So farewel Hope, and with Hope farewel Fear,

Farewel Remorse: all Good to me is lost;

Evil be thou my Good…

That, of course, is Milton’s Lucifer speaking.

It dawns on me that this is probably why the political pendulum is never static for long. The Rightwing in power becomes a trite broken record, fretting over how to endlessly Conserve values when those values have no valid threats. The Leftwing, on the other hand, develops a moral panic or maladaptive perfectionism that ultimately eats itself, because Progress’ing eventually becomes the sole value, even when it calls for Progress’ing away from crucial victories already attained. Thus those who wholly depend upon and exist by virtue of, say, free markets or scientific methodology or Justice Systems (Hobbes’ Leviathan?), come to feel very clever indeed when critiquing those things as though they can do better, without having demonstrated even the slightest evidence that they can in fact do so. This is perhaps, as the Brits say, on the tin, since ‘Critical Theory’ suggests the pitiable state of being a critic

Critic. n.

A person who boasts himself hard to please because nobody tries to please him.

-Bierce, Devil’s Dictionary

In parting, I would like to concede the following.

1. I do not believe that the presence of melanin or lack-thereof can actually/literally/Objectively be assigned any metaphysical quality. In other words, in the same way that I do not believe a black Labrador has ‘blackness’ beyond the fact that it is colored black, or that a white Labrador has ‘whiteness’ beyond that fact that it is colored white, I do not believe that much of anything is conveyed by the coloration of human beings beyond the utility of ‘look at that white guy over there’ or ‘look at that black guy over there.’

2. Insomuch as one disagrees with #1, I consider one to be bigoted, regardless of what coloration they are pretending to elaborate upon.

3. However, insomuch as the NMAAHC’s description of ‘whiteness’ could be accurate if they were correct–I would admittedly be proud to have or be that ‘whiteness.’

4. Yet, seeing as how this ‘whiteness’ is obviously a metaphysical construct separate from mere unalterable coloration, one must concede that these are qualities any person could potentially possess, meaning it is a matter of character rather than ‘race,’ and thus should not be called ‘whiteness’ (unless one wishes to reference the Biblical use of whiteness as symbolic of innocence and/or redemption).

5. Insomuch as the NMAAHC has made any person whom is not ‘racially’ white feel that they are disqualified or less qualified to achieve the aforementioned characteristics of ‘whiteness,’ I consider them to be a net negative upon humanity that ought to cry themselves to sleep each night in shame.

6. This recent collective resurgence of racial obsession is just a byproduct of the economic ruination caused by the coronavirus lockdown. Per historical norms, the lower classes are beginning to blame and scapegoat one another for the ruin brought upon them by their upperclass overlords. Insomuch as anyone perpetuates this blame-game, I find it stunning and regrettable that you were the quickest sperm.

whiteculture_info_1

Moral Tourism: A New Hobby at the Edge of History

Many have pondered whether George Floyd would have received any justice if his death hadn’t been recorded. I’m tempted to take this question a step further: would it have received any indignation at all if it hadn’t been recorded? As I’ve stated previously, it seems as though the Silent Majority of Americans (and perhaps the developed world entire) are incapable of mustering up emotion for anything except the most gruesome of imagery–the towers’ collapse during 9/11, for example, which garnered just enough outraged enthusiasm for ‘W’ to invade several countries that had nothing to do with it. If Floyd’s death had not been captured on video, the newspaper synopsis likely would have read: intoxicated man with extensive criminal record dies after chokehold arrest; police were alerted by a cashier after he passed a fake note. With the race of killer and killed expunged, it seems doubtful any further information would have been demanded.

Being moved solely by imagery is a consummate example of ‘out of sight, out of mind.’ Thus many a Westerner has suddenly, almost miraculously realized their deep-seated feelings of empathy (or guilt) towards African Americans in the late hour of 2020; unfortunately, they have not yet discovered it for any of the people-groups whom are actually enslaved TODAY. That realization would require effort beyond scrolling through social media feeds, and it might prove inconvenient indeed, for one would risk realizing that the Iphones which captured Floyd’s death were made by ChiCom slave labor on Apple’s behalf. But, since enslaved Chinese, including the Hong Kongers currently being divested of their liberty, and the Chinese-Muslim Uyghur minority currently being tortured in ‘reeducation camps,’ have little relevancy to ousting Trump, they are for some strange reason not receiving the same funding as BLM & Antifa from the likes of George Soros. Could this explain why the last time anyone heard these organizational acronyms before Floyd’s death was 2016?

One may rightly note that none of this changes the fact that African Americans have been treated unfairly. Indeed, it was very unkind of the likes of the Ashanti dynasty (of that textile design), or the Muslim pirates of the Barbary Coast, to auction their fellow Africans off to white traders. To see the stain of sin solely upon white hands during these sordid transactions is willful, expedient ignorance. If there is anything exceptional at all about the role American whites played in the vast history of slavery, it is that they were willing to fight & die over the matter in a Civil War. And in order to extrapolate a truly exceptional racism from this, one would have to believe that the majority of Southerners who risked their lives in that war were willing to die for an economic luxury they themselves did not possess. If you are not in the mood to risk your neck for billionaires’ right to keep their private jets, then you have understood my point. Those mystified should reread the 10th Amendment.

My intent, beyond the pleasure of snark for its own sake, is not to dissuade the newfound champions of civil rights; merely to ask that they remain consistent instead of, I don’t know—taking selfies at a rally, donating once or twice, then getting back to the ole Netflix binge with fresh assurance that they are a good little boy or girl. For the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. If we are going to give free money and emotional support to African Americans, I expect to see the same for interned Japanese and the truly decimated Native American tribes next, to name but a few. The business of righting historical wrongs is never-ending, and likely to bankrupt us all—but private & central bankers have already done that in slow-motion, so what the heck?

However, good luck parsing out which pale boogeymen are actually responsible, because, being Emma Lazarus’s melting pot, there are plenty of white Americans walking about whose dust-reduced ancestors were never afforded even the theoretical opportunity to own slaves, either because they were too historically late, or impoverished, or were themselves looked upon as inferior to W.A.S.P.s (see Catholics of all stripes, especially the Irish). I would also like to meet the daring soul who will audit African American ancestry to make sure none of the families of those freed slaves whom then purchased slaves for themselves are afforded a piece of this immaculate pie. Heritages of mixed race will also prove difficult in this regard (will it be the Leftwing that instigates a ‘one-drop rule’ this time around?).

In the meantime, a word of friendly warning to anyone who hopes to live to spend their reparation money. No law enforcement means no enforced laws (beyond whatever local protection rackets pop up). So, good luck enacting anything involving reparations at the same time that law enforcement is abolished. (Cue ‘Defund the Police doesn’t mean Defund the Police’). Furthermore, seeing as how the African American community is beset on all sides by ‘institutionalized racism,’ I should take great care to be sure that there is not some ulterior motive behind banishing police from all communities that cannot afford private security as a substitute. Now, I’m not saying that Margaret Sanger’s eugenics program, aka Planned Parenthood, has proven too slow for Them, and thus They (They being whoever institutionalized the institutions, I suppose) have resolved to speed up the process with some variation in stratagem…but I am saying, stranger things have happened. And this would be a particularly effective approach since no one seems to care about black-on-black violence. Indeed, even citing it currently merits a one-way ticket to the Racist category. For example, a journalist was recently pilloried for reproducing this quotation from an African American he interviewed:

I always question, why does a Black life matter only when a white man takes it?… Like, if a white man takes my life tonight, it’s going to be national news, but if a black man takes my life, it might not even be spoken of…

The answer, of course, is that our concern is not Justice (for she is Blind), only social justice. We care not to rectify present evils, only those which are already long passed. This is textbook, almost passe, Divide and Conquer–to agitate and foment historical resentment between different tribes to distract from current wrongs and lay the foundation for even worse ones in the future. I’m reminded of a Frankie Boyle joke that went something along the lines of:

Black and white people shall finally live together in harmony…in Chinese concentration camps.

I’ve tried holding off comparing our current state of affairs to the Maoist Red Guard’s Cultural Revolution, but a recent anonymous letter from a Berkeley history professor has caused me to think it might be now-or-never. That this ‘person of color’ (God, what a horrendous expression–does that mean I am a ‘person of non-color’?) knows they would lose their job for signing this piece is bad enough. The individual points themselves seem to terminate inexorably at the question: if a violent far-left ‘cultural revolution’ were to occur in the United States, what other warning signs would you possibly desire?

However, if that is in fact what is occurring (and I certainly hope it isn’t), I remain skeptical that it will ‘work’ as any of its adherents would wish. As I understand it, even the likes of Antifa merely want a political ‘anarchy’ in which they are still alive and fairly well. But any earnest attempt to force the U.S. in a socialist/communist direction that involves discomfort on the part of taxpayers would assuredly result in a distinctly apolitical anarchy. If some puppet-master would take the pains to…

  • automate, outsource, or otherwise disappear the majority of American jobs
  • prevent the federal government as-is from instituting a reactionary Universal Basic Income
  • THEN use leftist students to rabble-rouse ala Les Miserables

…we might see a homogeneously far-left USA. Otherwise, any such all-or-nothing bid is simply going to burn the whole place down like the Biblical Babylon due to the populace having not been disarmed beforehand.

Assuming (perhaps out of wishful thinking) that this unthinkable outcome will not occur, I maintain two assumptions about the future. The first is thanks to the astute commentary of @Cernovich ; the second is my own.

  • Urbanization is finished; anyone with a fulltime job, or a family, or a base-level appreciation of survival is going to flee for the suburbs or country and buy guns.
  • BLM/Antifa is but the first wave of a new hobby at the edge of history: moral tourism. The social media zombies, rather than craving brains, crave crisis. This is the only stimuli sufficient to jolt their fried nervous systems into feeling alive, however temporarily. Faux-outrage at spoon-fed, IV-dripped realizations that the world is imperfect will be their pastime in lieu of productive or lucrative work, in-person or functional families and friends, or any socio-cultural-historical value system whatsoever. Eventually no statues will stand, for they will all have been pulled down by the suspicion that anyone who did anything worth remembering must have been evil, compared to the immaculate innocence of their utter, grave-obliterated mediocrity. The rich (meaning anyone with private property) will horde the books which this mob would burn, having discovered a new status symbol on the grounds that ‘this, at least, cannot have been tampered with.’ It is even possible that the use of social media (I would not yet go so far as to say the Internet entire) will grow akin to being a Prodigal Son. ‘Poor child, they chose that poison over Real Life.’

There is no telling how many the moral tourists will kill in their first few bouts of Dionysian frenzy, but eventually this new class-based segregation will solidify. Suburban and rural taxpayers will learn to defend themselves, and tax-dependents will stay in their rotting cityscapes except when paid or goaded into kamikaze attempts with political motives. We’ll have done all those sci-fi/dystopia authors real proud.

For those regular persons of any race or creed wondering what to do in this chaotic interim, I recommend consulting Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago (even the Harper abridged edition to save time). It’s a masterful summary of how these waves of memetic violence ebb and flow, and it concludes on the whole that the only way to prevent its worst potential outcomes is total noncompliance when and if Someone shows up at your door. In hindsight, it is painfully obvious that WW2’s Russian kulaks and German Jews should have put their axeheads between the eyes of anyone who came to round them up; if they had done so they would have saved millions of lives and perhaps even their own. In the case of the United States, no force on Earth can forcibly subdue such an armed citizenry–eventually you run out of people willing to volunteer for the abduction detail, since their zealot friends keep coming home in boxes. Farmers with rusty rifles and makeshift explosives have kept the world’s best killing force occupied in the desert for decades now–if we do not do better, it will only be by choice.

How to Lose a Revolution Before It’s Begun

It wasn’t until I impulsively clicked on an MSNBC livestream out of Santa Monica that it dawned on me. I had assumed the position of effete American leftists–especially in the media–would be to endorse an attitude of ‘anything goes’ regarding the George Floyd backlash. But there they were, bemoaning the destruction of The Sake House and gasping as rioters tried to pull a hose out of a firefighters’ grasp. A guest commentator even noted that every box of free sneakers carried out of shattered windows is another few thousand new votes for Trump. In short, their take (that these are bad optics with the potential to put civil rights back incalculably) was indistinguishable from the take being given on Fox News.

Homogeny among MSNBC and Fox, I pondered? What is this–9/11? Traumatic imagery seems to be the only way to shift the fairly indifferent Silent Majority of U.S. moderates in a particular direction. Just days ago, one would have assumed the imagery in question would be, and would remain, Floyd’s murder. The total destruction of a Minneapolis police precinct came and went without batting an eye. Fair enough, the collective consciousness whispered. But the ensuing footage, like B-roll from The Purge, wherein familiar streets and amenities are pillaged and plundered against the Floyd family’s wishes has proved a bridge too far. The message is clear:

BLM, Antifa–you can burn police stations if you want; they can fend for themselves. But don’t you lay a goddamned finger on my Starbucks & McDonalds.

The uniquely leftist way of saying this is, arguably, “Sure, Black Lives Matter–but can’t they Matter without inconveniencing me?”

This reaction, though surprising even to a cynic such as myself, isn’t at all unprecedented. The American psyche is not at all as unpredictable and bipolar as its political extremists sometimes make it seem. At the end of the day, it is a corporation-country. Sometimes you have to indulge a strike, maybe even some Luddite sabotage, but eventually everyone is going back to work, or else.

The fact that the National Guard has not yet been ordered to open fire on looters (despite hollow tweets to that effect) perhaps signifies that the corporation’s patience still has reserves. I think this patience is due–sad to say–to the arguable fact that the role of these looters within said corporation is to wind up in prison. And wind up there they shall, no matter how many times our benevolent bosses decide to let them go. Even if a few get to keep their new plasma TVs and stay free long enough to enjoy them, what is that compared to the astounding budgetary benefits police are going to gain from these temper tantrums? We thought they were militarized before? What do you suppose they will look like once every station is outfitted to repel a city-wide assault? We may have meant to say to police, ‘look here, stop killing unarmed civilians!’ But what they heard was, ‘hey, become so terrifying that you don’t have to kill unarmed civilians.’

As for Trump, the only way he doesn’t get 4 more years* is if he is no longer corporeal (and if that happens, the Republican fallback may well be the Fascistic nightmare that American leftists have long fantasized Trump is). He is getting his Conservative Supreme Court, the NRA is going to eat other special interest lobbyists’ lunches for decades to come, and any newfangled economic recovery methods he (or should I say Jared) thinks up is getting passed. Optional: Israel finishes its plans for Palestine, knowing they will never have a better opportunity again.

Walking to a vandalized church, Bible in hand…God, that’s good. Our Left have been so worried about ‘institutionalized racism’ that they forgot the possibility of causing its far more personal renaissance. They spoke of the devil until he appeared. Although, this time around I expect it will be far more class than color based. The days of the bedsheet wearers are behind us; the days of those with something to lose making sure they are ready to dispatch any irksome have-nots has only just begun. The corporation is restructuring, and our urban department is about to get downsized.

RIP George Floyd. RIP Tony Timpa.

 

*…OK, if they hijack Biden at the convention with an Oprah/Obama ticket, it won’t be that easy.