Category Archives: Regressive Leftism

Bin Laden and the Algorithmic Manipulators

Leave a reply

Before we get into this, I’m curious how many of you had “leftists voice agreement with Osama Bin Laden” on your bingo card for 2023. It’s understandable if you didn’t, but what a year this is turning out to be.

In the year 2002, Osama Bin Laden, the very same Bin Laden that ran the terror network Al Qaeda, had issued a letter titled, A Letter to America, wherein he laid out his rationale for the 9/11 terror attacks.

I, for one, am skeptical that Bin Laden actually authored the letter, as he had initially steadfastly denied being involved in the attacks, and each of the hijackers actually attended the Al Quds mosque in Hamburg, Germany, which was never shut down, as far as I could tell.

In the letter, Bin Laden pointed out that there was no such thing as innocent civilians in the U.S.’s democracy, pointing out that his violent actions were a reaction to the policy positions of representatives that civilians voted into office. He voiced such an opposition to U.S. policy that it sounded suspiciously like it was intended to feed into a casus belli for further American intervention. Hopefully it’s understandable why I’m skeptical.

The letter had been published by British news outlet The Guardian, who took it down when a recent spate of TikTok videos appeared expressing surprise at the contents of the letter, with some expressing agreement with Bin Laden’s sentiments, saying that they’ve had their preconceived notions challenged, and encouraging their viewers to also read the letter.

Normally, I’d embed at least one example of such a video here, but I’m not doing that this time, for a reason that I’ll get into later on in this post.

When it comes to a letter from Osama Bin Laden, I’m curious what people were expecting. Did they expect something like five paragraphs of hand-wringing and mustache-twirling, proceeded by cartoon-villain cackling? The guy had a following, and he had a following for a reason: he was able to justify his positions, even if through faulty reasoning, and he did so in such a way that would have been considered convincing to those who lacked the ability to comprehend true evil, or at least those who would be dumb enough to fall for his arguments.

People with bad positions are usually able to justify their positions. Take the flat-earthers, for example. People know that flat-earthers are wrong. However, they take for granted that flat-earthers are wrong. So when they get into a debate with one, they imagine that it will be a piece-of-cake slam dunk victory. But then the debate begins, and the flat-earther runs circles around them, because they know how the game is played, they have rhetorical deceit down to a science, they came prepared with arguments that most people are not prepared for, and they themselves came prepared for the arguments and rebuttals that they could reasonably expect. The result is that a typical, middle-of-the-road thinker is left to kick dust on the way home, knowing that he lost a debate to a flat-earther.

While we’re at it, I’m curious as to what people think is in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. While it’s true that much of it is a hateful tirade made to appeal to one with an external locus of control, it’s also a political manifesto that would have been considered encouraging to a German who would have felt downtrodden in Hitler’s time.

Evil people are able to justify their wickedness, even if their reasoning is deeply flawed. To them, what most would see as wicked may be what they see as justifiable, or even banal.

By way of another example, there’s also the manifesto of Ted Kazynski, the person who is popularly known as the Unabomber. When his manifesto was published, the expectation would have understandably been the ramblings of a deluded psychopath who believed that the moon followed him as he walked around. As it turns out, he made some points about society that many people considered valid.

Returning to Bin Laden, I wonder how many people out there have forgotten that he was a religious zealot, whose own religion is pretty-much everything that a stereotypical leftist pretends that Christianity is. Bin Laden was an Islamist, who wanted to implement Sharia in the west.

The following is a few of Bin Laden’s policy positions:

  • Executing gays,
  • Normalizing slavery (and no, I’m not kidding),
  • Outlawing bacon,
  • Outlawing grown-up beverages,
  • Outlawing non-religious music,
  • A functionally-retarded banking system that’s somehow supposed to run without interest,
  • Normalizing pederasty, which has been legal in Afghanistan for decades,
  • State-sponsorship of a cult that discourages the pursuit of anything outside of itself,
  • That science is not allowed to question, among other things, that the earth is flat,
  • A judicial system that’s so capricious that tyrants are needed to maintain order,
  • That the testimony of a woman is either 1/2 or 1/4 that of a man in courts of law.

There’s a lot more. And a bunch of simpletons are impressed with this guy?

Now, let’s get into the reason why I’m not leaving a video embed in this post. Personally, I doubt that these people actually believe what they’re saying. The fact is, the TikTok algorithm boosts what gets plenty of engagement, and what’s rage-inducing (such as police-brutality videos) tend to get more attention. I suspect that these are just people who know how the game is played, and are attempting to farm the algorithm for views. I don’t want to give them a signal boost, because I don’t want them to have more attention.

But even if they don’t believe it, they still have followings that may take their words for it. And that’s how attempts to game an algorithm can have potentially harmful outcomes. We’ve already seen how videos of police brutality have inspired looting and rioting. Now, there are social media influencers out to make a quick buck who don’t care about the long-term social damage that can occur as a result of algorithmic manipulation.

But if the social media influencers were sincere, then there’s no telling how they’ll react when they get around to reading something that’s actually reasonable, such as the basic philosophical underpinnings of Libertarianism, or that of Austrian economics.

To get to the heart of the matter, however eloquent that his justifications could have possibly been, it still remains that Osama Bin Laden was a murderous nutjob who hid behind his religion, which played a significant role in motivating him to become the killer he ended up becoming.

Now, the indoctrinators of the political left are looking on in horror as the very children that they indoctrinated went on to side with terrorists like Al Qaeda and Hamas, simply because those terrorist organizations have been using similar rhetoric to justify themselves. And now said indoctrinators are losing control of the very generation with which they had hoped to usher in a revolution, and are losing control of them to a bunch of religious fanatics who are far more hateful than even themselves.

I can think of no better way to fight back than to make it known why their new ideology is not worth fighting for. Just because it’s obvious to me why this is the case doesn’t mean that everyone can be reasoned with.

If it turns out that the letter actually was a U.S. psy-op, the consequences might almost be funny. Except not quite.

The Left and Dialectical Thinking

Leave a reply

A normal, healthy mind supposes that if there are two mutually-exclusive viewpoints, then they cannot both be correct.

For example, if a normal thinker were to be presented with the two statements, “racism is wrong” and “discrimination against whites is okay”, they would perceive an irreconcilable contradiction, and understand that both statements cannot be true.

The use of “if-therefore” statements to determine what follows with axioms as the basis is logical thinking.

You might have noticed that many leftists hold the statements “racism is wrong” and “discrimination against whites is okay” to be simultaneously true. In the mind of a logical thinker, this is vexing, because to them, both statements cannot simultaneously be true.

So, why? Why do so many leftists hold to such a blatant and irreconcilable ideological contradiction? How can such a thing possibly make sense?

And the answer is, it doesn’t. Yet, leftists still hold such contradictory viewpoints due to what’s called dialectical thinking.

So, what is dialectical thinking? As relates to leftism and the related Marxist philosophies surrounding it, dialectical thinking involves the synthesis of conflicting ideas to form a new idea.

Consider how the typical leftist handles the two contradictory statements in the example above. They are told that “racism is wrong”, and “discrimination against whites is okay”, and they are told that, in order to be a good leftist, they need to hold both statements as simultaneously true.

A healthy mind would consider such a political ideology to be complete mushuganah, reject it out of hand, and perhaps even treat it to the sound ridicule it richly merits. However, people who are in cults are seldom of sound mind. They want to fit in, and they’re determined to do so, no matter how hard they have to force the square peg through the round hole.

So, to the end of winning headpats from their ideological superiors, leftists must somehow reconcile the statements, “racism is wrong”, and “discrimination against whites is okay”. But how?

As most of us know, to exercise discrimination on the basis of one’s race, such as in cases where a person is white, is racism per se. Considering this, to the end of reconciling the two contradictory statements, it’s plain to see that the leftist’s main obstacle would be the definition of racism.

So, what is the intellectually-confused leftist to do? That’s easy: just change the definition of racism to exclude discrimination against whites.

Obviously, a sound mind would not make such an exception. But, again, we’re talking about cultists. So, not only will they make the exception, they’ll attempt to justify it in an attempt to silence their conscience, which is probably screaming in agony. Knowing this, it’s easy to see why they continually point to the past crime of slavery as justification for their own Halal form of discrimination, while ignoring the fact that slavery was also practiced by nearly every culture to ever exist.

When you understand dialectical thinking, you understand why leftists are as prone as they are to simultaneously holding contradictory viewpoints.

The example above was not arbitrary, by the way. It was selected to help you understand why the word “racism” has gone from a word with a definition to a leftist snarl word that is used to describe people that disagree with them. Leftists use the word “fascist” in the same sense, while simultaneously engaging in collective action to the end of furthering Marxist economics. Unironically.

As I’ve pointed out before, if language is being used that evokes an emotional reaction, while bypassing your better judgement, you might be in a cult.

Dialectical thinking itself is a memetic holdover of Gnosticism, which had a particular influence on Marxism (remember that many Marxist cults were at one point religious in nature). Early in its history, Christianity recognized Gnosticism as a heresy, and dealt with it accordingly, before Christianity went on to become the world’s most popular religion. When you understand this, it’s easy to see why many Gnostics have a problem with Christianity, and that the dialectical thinkers on the left are fighting someone else’s battles for them.

As much as I’d like to ask whether I helped you to make sense of leftist thinking, we must admit that it still doesn’t make sense. Even so, it can be said that when you know about dialectical thinking, you’re in a better position to comprehend the senselessness of leftist thinking, including why they are in a constant state of redefining themselves, and why they embrace contradictions that more reasonable people would not.

The Trannifesto Has Leaked. Here’s What It Says.

1 Reply

The Trannifesto, the final writings of Audrey Hale, the Covenant school shooter, has just been leaked through Steven Crowder’s website, louderwithcrowder.com. The guy is a true patriot, please pay his site a visit.

The shooting, committed by a transgender person (who was in reality a woman), occurred over 8 months ago. Though law enforcement had obtained the shooter’s final writings, its release to the public has been repeatedly delayed, with perhaps no plans to release it, at all.

As has been stated previously, the Trannifesto is not so much a manifesto as it is a set of journal entries.

If you’re as skeptical as me, you might wonder whether the pages were a scam made by someone abusing AI. I ran the images through an AI detector, and the likelihood of the images being AI generated was 2.1%, 3.8%, and 34.2%, according to Illuminarty.ai. So by the looks of it, these are legit.

Now, let’s give these a look, and I’ll give my opinion.

I’ll say first of all that Audrey Hale sucked fuck at handwriting. Also, nothing conveys a psycho middle-school mindset quite like doodles of guns shooting at targets in a margin of a page. And then there’s scrawling out “DARK ABYSS DEATH DAY” as the title of the entry, as if to drive home the teen angst that she was way too old for.

I’m absolutely not surprised that Audrey’s broken, defective mind could not perceive that there is such a thing as an innocent person, which was evidenced by her choice of targets. What does surprise me is how far back that Audrey contemplated the crimes that she ended up committing, which goes at least as far back as the summer of 2021, when her plotting was nearly discovered.

Audrey Hale’s crimes were not a crime of passion, they were deliberate.

Audrey planned out her final crimes meticulously, planning out her last day alive down to the minute. One might wonder what was covered by the sticky note, and based on the marks that are showing, it looks like part of the sentence, “Spend time w/ stuffed animals and possessions” was obscured. So yeah, in her last day alive, right before committing mass murder, a psychopath prioritized spending time with her toys.

This entry, dated the previous month, gives a window into the mind of the killer, and tells us what motivated her. It was basically a racist and classist tirade packed with expletives and ranting about what she perceived as indications of wealth and status.

It pretty much comes down to Hale hating a bunch of children whose parents worked hard to ensure that their children had a brighter future, and hating their parents for having things that they either worked or taken on debt for. Like many of Hale’s ilk, hers was a highly superficial perspective that assumed that disparity in outcome must necessarily be a product of factors that she felt she could rightly resent another for.

It’s obvious why there was such hesitation to release this to the public, because it’s an indictment against the political ideology which, when taken to its extreme, would motivate a sick individual to lash out in the way that Audrey did.

I’ve often heard it asked what it is that motivates mass killers. After all, the targets are seldom someone that the killers knew personally. The reason why mass killers try to end as many lives as possible is because their target is society. They want to cause as much damage to society as possible. Oftentimes, it’s because the killer supposed that society has failed them.

By reason of Hale’s transgender identity, it’s reasonable to infer that she wasn’t in touch with reality. Such a person would certainly be considered a vulnerable individual, prone to manipulation. Thus, when Hale was presented with the idea that a difference in outcome is intrinsically related one’s immutable characteristics, combined with Hale’s lack of empathy, and her belief that children are valid targets, together with the ease with which Hale could be manipulated, it becomes easier to see why she could be influenced to commit murder.

As disturbing as all this is, what’s particularly disturbing is that much of her hatred was directed towards children. She hated them for their race, and she hated them because the decisions that their parents made were to the end of ensuring that those children would have a bright future ahead of them. This is no reason to hate anyone, for one thing, because a person’s race is something that they cannot control, but also because to ensure a brighter future for one’s own children is one of the strongest driving motivations for one to work hard in today’s world. That Hale could bring herself to hate someone for these reasons goes to show just how damaged her mind was.

Because Audrey Hale was once a student at the same school where she would eventually die a murderer, it’s hard to say that she was motivated by envy of what other children had. But it seems apparent that she was motivated by racism, and I think it would be interesting to find out from whom her racist ideas came from.

As disturbing as all this is, it gets worse in context. While Audrey Hale’s thinking is aberrant, it’s far more common than it should be, to the point that it’s all but guaranteed that the tragedy that it resulted in will happen again.

And with her thinking being fed into by academia, the pharmaceutical industry, banking cartels, the Biden administration, and more, it’s not so much a question of whether it will happen again, but when and where.

Cults and the Abuse of Language

1 Reply

It is difficult to convince a person who is in a cult that they are in one. But there are telltale signs that a person can notice if they know to look for them.

One such sign involves how cults use language. If the language your group employs is designed to stir up a strong emotional reaction, and shut down critical thinking, then you’re likely in a cult.

We all like comical examples. You probably remember Jamaal Bowman, the Democrat representative who pulled a fire alarm, disrupting a house vote in progress, then said he thought that that was how one opened a door.

He’s been in damage control since, but his team has managed to find a solution to keep the heat off him: by calling Republicans Nazis:

What Jamaal didn’t count on was for this brilliant plan to leak out. So being ever the diplomat, he took the opportunity to take the moral high ground, throwing his own strategists under the bus:

Which may seem like he’s making himself out as being above such abuse of language, until you consider that a significant portion of his constituents are sincere in their beliefs that their political rivals are not legitimate, but instead, actual Nazis.

The left has been trying for years to connect the right to the National Socialist German Workers Party, with no consideration for the sincerely held ideological beliefs of either the right or the Nazis, or for the left’s own alliance of convenience with actual Nazis in the Ukraine.

On the surface, it seems damnably idiotic. However, it does succeed in fooling the intellectually deficient among us. And, as it so happens, the intellectually deficient have votes that count just as much as the votes of those of us who can tie our shoes without getting distracted into furious masturbation.

You see, the left knows how to abuse language. And one of the ways that cultish movements like the western political left abuses language is by using emotionally charged language that is designed to bypass better judgement, and get you to assume the worst of the people that they describe.

Such as when they wage frivolous accusations of sexual misconduct against those who get to be a bit too influential, in an effort to snipe their careers and cause a chilling effect that serves to dissuade anyone who might consider taking up their cause.

So, while damnable, their approach is not necessarily idiotic.

Amanda Montell, the author of Cultish: the Language of Fanaticism, made an interesting contrast between how language is used by scientists and how it’s used by cultists:

“My parents, they’re scientists and they will use jargon that I don’t understand. But that jargon is there to make communication clearer. Cultish language has these ulterior motives and it’s there to make communication hazier.

“It’s there to divide people, to shut down independent thinking.

“And that’s how you know that language is cultish, when it causes strong emotional response, but you yourself have trouble translating what it is that you’re saying.”

Amanda Montell

Those of us who are sufficiently well studied are aware of what composes the Nazi ideology, how central Socialism was to it, and how its theology is a smattering of German folklore and dialectic philosophy. If you were aware of these things, the left’s divisive abuse of accusations of Nazism is much less likely to have an effect on you.

When it comes down to it, the intended use of language is to communicate clearly and concisely. However, what cultists see in language is an instrument of control. And to this end, they’ll craft mantras and load words so when they use them they’ll have the desired effect, regardless of their original definitions. A cultist may have the same vocabulary, but they don’t have the same dictionary.

Knowing this, do you think you’re in a better position to recognize a cult?

Oh look, this again.

Leave a reply

It’s already abundantly evident that the #metoo movement has been hijacked, taken from its original purpose of encouraging sex abuse victims to come forward, and has been made into a tool with which one can snipe those that they don’t like.

Is that what’s happening with Russell Brand? I don’t know, but I do know that it’s suspicious that the accusations against him haven’t come forward in a timely manner, but instead were brought out nearly two decades after the alleged crime supposedly occurred, and shortly after he expressed non-establishment viewpoints, and picked up a substantial following.

I’m not taking a side on this matter, considering that the accusations have nothing behind them but the accusations themselves, but also because it’s possible that evidence can surface, showing that crimes may have actually taken place.

But that doesn’t mean that this whole affair doesn’t have the appearance of something sketchy. The accusations were immediately picked up by corporate media outlets, which ran the story with nothing to go off of but the accusations. Which, by the way, is not journalism. Moving in lockstep, Google demonetized Russell’s YouTube channel, in apparent presumption of his guilt.

If the intention were to create a chilling effect to discourage one from gaining a following by pointing out what’s wrong with certain corporate interests, one way to go about it would be to attack their character. And the most effective attack, historically, has been an allegation of sexual misconduct, considering that allegations of that nature have a stronger tendency to bypass a person’s better judgment, making them more likely to assume guilt on the part of the accused.

I’ve noticed in recent months that the methods of corporate media outlets and their butt buddies have been becoming increasingly indelicate. As I see it, there are two things which can cause such a change in approach, one being the confidence that comes from thinking oneself indestructible, and the other is the desperation that one sees out of one who realizes that they are fighting a losing battle.

When you consider the fact the culture war has turned heavily in our favor, it’s not hard to see their desperation.

What will come of this is something yet to be seen. But at this point, I can say that we can try not to be too suspicious of the accusers, in spite of the circumstances surrounding the allegations. They might actually be telling the truth, this time.

An Image To Describe 2023

Leave a reply

Normally, I wait until December is almost up to post an image that I feel best describes the year. I know that it’s only August, but the contest is over, we already have a winner.

Here it is:

I would have imagined that when Donald Trump went in for his mugshot, he’d put on a wide grin, as if to reassure the MAGA crowd that things are going to work out, and there’s no need to worry. Instead, we get a determined scowl, which means business. Speaking for me, I’d like to see that on a T-shirt. It’s probably already a thing.

Things are really turning up. For the first time, the lackeys of the current administration have arrested the previous president, and it was over something as petty as questioning the results of an election. Which was something that Hillary Clinton has done, but as we all know, this is a two-tier justice system.

To make matters worse, Trump’s lawyers are being charged as well, which has a disturbing chilling effect and sends a message that the Democrat-controlled system is going to come after you if you come to the defense of this person who is outside the cabal.

While the latest development is alarming, it goes to show that the woke elements of the Democrat establishment is growing increasingly insecure. As history has shown us again and again, when a dictator’s grip starts slipping, they become increasingly artless and indelicate in their methods.

The fact is, as much establishment power as the woke has held, they are losing the culture war, and it is becoming increasingly evident to ordinary people. The signs are hard to miss. Have a white-pill block:

The Biden administration’s approval rating plummeted in light of the botched Afghanistan withdraw. The boycott against Bud Light has been highly successful, and the brand is just about destroyed. A similar boycott against Target has proven the point that pushing sexual perversity on children can result in a company’s stock plummeting, and going woke can actually be a violation of fiduciary duties. Starbucks started taking down pride decorations in the middle of pride month, while trying to be quiet about it. The hit single “Rich Men North of Richmond” has debuted at #1 of the Billboard Top 100, and is already widely considered “the protest song of this generation”. Parents have taken notice that sexual perversity is being foisted upon children through the education system, resulting in pushback. Vanguard has ditched ESG. George Soros has lost billions of dollars in investments. High school senior males are tending conservative over liberal by nearly two-to-one and are entering the voting population. Roe v Wade and Affirmative Action have both been struck down by the Supreme Court. Twitter, now called X, is now privately-owned by a free speech advocate.

And there’s more. And by the looks of it, it’s going to keep going, as the left-wing establishment continues to lose control. And as they lose control, they’ll continue to make increasingly-desperate moves, abusing the power that’s slipping away from them.

Things continue to get more interesting.

Apparently, opposing child sex trafficking makes you QAnon, now.

1 Reply

Sometimes, I wonder whether the people (yet to be replaced by AI) in legacy media believe what they are typing. In some cases, they have to be malicious, because there’s no other way to explain what passes from their fingertips, into their keyboards, into the ether, and from glowing display screens to the disappointed eyeballs of those who have yet to move on to more relevant information sources.

I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but right now, I imagine you might be thinking, “Oh boy, now what did they do?”

Only writing hit pieces on a new film bringing attention to one of the worst crimes taking place today, child sex trafficking.

What’s amazing about the Twitter snippet above is that all that it gets right is that Sound of Freedom is about child-trafficking.

Every other data point was wrong. QAnon had nothing to do with it. It’s not a superhero movie. The implication of conspiracy theorism without using the term conspiracy theory is intellectually dishonest. And I prefer not to speculate as to why brainworms feature prominently in the thinking of the Rolling Stone author.

I’m noticing a trend where if a person expresses opposition to the real problem of child sex trafficking, then that person is called a part of QAnon, as if to suggest that being part of QAnon is a bad thing. I think it’s about time we handle such petty name-calling by deciding that we don’t care.

You think I’m with QAnon? Go ahead and think that. I don’t care. Think I’m pedophile-phobic? I don’t care.

Because of what Rolling Stone has to say about Sound of Freedom, a film opposing child sex trafficking, let’s see what they had to say about Cuties, a film about sexualizing minors:

Oh.

But, you know, that’s just Rolling Stone. Let’s see what Washington Democracy Dies In Darkness Post has to say about it:

The use of the term low-budget to describe Sound of Freedom is designed to get you to dismiss it out-of-hand, as though you’re supposed to think a film is not worth seeing unless it a big-name production with a budget in the hundreds of millions.

Now, I admit that I didn’t look into the star of the film, or his opinions on QAnon. That’s simply immaterial to the quality or content of the film itself, which mentions nothing about QAnon.

What I do know is that the film is based on a true story about a man who was on a sting operation to crash a pedophile island party and arrest the predators who were participating. During the film, the man embarks on a journey to reunite a family with two children who were abducted by a fake talent agency. It basically watches like a crime drama, but makes the point that child sex trafficking is a very real problem.

Impressively enough, this low-budget indie film has gone on to rival the summer blockbuster, Indiana Jones! That goes to show that there’s something about Sound of Freedom that resonates with people.

In writing it off as a QAnon film (as though that’s a problem), Washington Post risks alienating themselves from the few readers that they have left in this social media age. But at least they didn’t pull a Rolling Stone and call it a superhero movie, right?

But hold on, they had an opinion about Cuties, too. Let’s see what they had to say about that, presumably before painting their toenails black and lamenting democracy’s death in darkness:

You can tell a lot about a person by what they think is normal. Apparently a movie about sexualizing minors is “an unflinching look at what it means to be a preteen girl”. And if you have a problem with that, then the problem is that you “can’t handle it”.

Of course, if you’re of the opinion that sexualizing minors is not a biggie, then you’d probably have a problem with a movie that depicts child sex trafficking in a negative light.

I heard about Sound of Freedom, not by marketing, but by word of mouth. I was already considering seeing it when a fellow patriot offered to see it with me, so I accepted his offer.

It’s a film I recommend, but with the warning that it’s not for the faint of heart. There are no graphic depictions of abuse, but there are strong implications.

Having seen the movie, I can understand the strong desire to do something about the problem. If a person were to “go vigilante”, they might end up creating more problems than they solve, and perhaps even disrupt investigations already in progress. Perhaps the better course of action would be to contact representatives about legislation that could combat child exploitation. Also of benefit might be researching which candidates might be tougher on child exploitation prior to casting your vote in an election.

Of course, you can also tell other people about the movie, Sound of Freedom, and encourage them to see it. It would seem that word of mouth is still effective in bringing attention to media designed to heighten awareness.

When it comes to vigilantism, don’t do anything I wouldn’t do.

Apparently now we’re supposed to conflate any opposition to child sex trafficking with QAnon, who we are supposed to think are bad guys, even though their main deal is opposing child sex trafficking. What is legacy media’s stake in this game?

Thanks for making it easy to take the moral high ground, I guess.

EDIT: Not The Bee already published an article somewhat similar in tone to this one, with a similar title. I wasn’t aware of it when I published this article, but credit to them for publishing their opinion first.

A Federal Judge Banned the Biden Admin From Pressuring Social Media Companies To Censor Dissenting Viewpoints, But I Was Told That Wasn’t Happening

Leave a reply

You might know a kid who was interested in playing Chess. But just because a kid was playing Chess doesn’t mean he was good at it.

Oftentimes, when you play against a kid, you would allow special rules that were designed to give the kid an advantage, to give him a chance of winning.

It might be that his pieces couldn’t be taken when they’re on his side of the board. Or it could be that you couldn’t start the game with your strongest pieces. Or it could be that the child would be granted two moves on his turn, while you still have only one. Whatever the special rules were, they were designed as “kid gloves”, to give the child an advantage to help them win the match, which they usually did.

But imagine playing a game of Chess as an adult, being granted the opportunity to benefit from the same special rules that were designed to encourage children to play, playing with the same advantages that these special rules would afford. If you’re like me, you’d be embarrassed to accept such an advantage. But if you were to accept them and when victory occurs, would you really feel like you’ve outwitted your opponent?

Considering the unfair advantage that you’ve been granted, could you really succeed in convincing yourself that you’ve won on your own virtues and merits?

But for a long time, that was how heavily the social media landscape favored left wing viewpoints. Social media networks were run largely by those who were politically on the left. Not only that, the algorithms favored left wing viewpoints, while algorithmically burying any conservative viewpoint. Worse yet, moderation was dominated by leftists, who oftentimes deleted conservative viewpoints outright, not specifying any Terms of Service violations. In many cases, this resulted in a loss of income.

These leftists would even go as far as to shadow ban conservatives, limiting their potential for reaching a wide audience, without them being notified of this, with Facebook leader Mark Zuckerberg denying that such a practice was taking place, committing perjury before Congress.

Through it all, the book burners of the digital age had a partner in crime: the Democratic establishment. This government entity colluded with social media companies to suppress conservative viewpoints, in what is the gravest violation of the first amendment in the history of the republic, and it’s not even close.

While we’ve been repeatedly told that no such thing was occurring, there is a mountain of evidence showing that it certainly has been, not least of which are the Twitter Files. There’s also the fact that the government’s three-letter agencies are embarrassingly bad at keeping secrets, even secrets that are so damning.

Now, a federal judge has ordered them to stop colluding with social media to suppress dissent:

Can you imagine a grownup kid, one wearing a Burger King crown and a cape made of bedsheets, who for his entire adult life has been playing and winning games of Chess because he’s been playing by the kid’s rules, suddenly having to play grownup Chess with all the other grownups?

Can you imagine him, as his action figures are lined up outside the play area “cheering him on”, slowly coming to the realization that he’s not the brilliant strategist that he thinks he is, as he is suddenly made to play on equal footing with the other adults?

Can you imagine him throwing his toys on the floor, and storming off, stating his intention on making a “better game”, better than the “complicated” game that all the other grownups are better at?

And can you imagine him continually coming back, even though he gets soundly defeated again and again, each time retreating to the comfort of his soup and crayons?

Now, we’re at the point in which you don’t have to imagine it. And you love to see it.

The Bitterness of Ben & Jerry’s

Leave a reply

While ignorant political takes are no stranger to Ben & Jerry’s, they took things over the top on July 4th, when they appealed to the inordinate feeling of guilt of their fellow leftists.

If the name Ben & Jerry’s sounds familiar, yes, they are the brand of ice cream that you don’t buy because it’s way too expensive, bad for you, and not really that great.

Anyhow, here’s their crappy take:

Like many with a cereal box understanding of history, Ben & Jerry’s apparently believes that Native Americans were a peaceful lot until European colonists showed up, broke treaties by violently attacking them without provocation, then seized their land for themselves.

To get right to the heart of it, the Native Americans were not peaceful. The tribes were pretty much in a state of perpetual war with each other, and they were not gentlemen about it. They were so over-the-top that the ancient Assyrians would have wanted them to chill out.

What they’d do is gather raiding parties then proceed to attack enemy villages while they were asleep. The Native American tribes were in a constant state of war and were continually “stealing land” from each other. After European colonists showed up, the natives lost a game they were already playing to those who were better at it.

Also, Native Americans kept slaves. When a tribe conquered a village, an expected outcome for the conquered people (out of the many that were not off the table, such as torture) was to be enslaved. And there was no sign that this practice would have ended without the settlers showing up and eventually issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.

As many natives that may have been lost warring with the colonists, more were apparently lost to disease. Native Americans didn’t have the same immunity to viruses that were accidentally brought across the Atlantic with the European settlers. When these settlers moved across the land, they sometimes found entire villages which were empty.

Now, if Native Americans still held the land, would we have been better off with their culture?

Travel south to Central America, and you’ll find the Mayans, who performed human sacrifices. There were also the Aztecs, who also performed human sacrifices, but using war prisoners.

And if they remained the dominant culture of the land, do you suppose that Native Americans would have developed the same science and technology that helps ensure that life as we know it isn’t a living hell? After all, we’re talking about cultures so primitive that many of them, at the point of their discovery by Europeans, still hadn’t developed the wheel.

I don’t know about you, but I like the advances that were made possible because a bunch of violent tribesmen were displaced by the civilized and industrious. I like antibiotics because I prefer that small scrapes not be fatal. I like modern agriculture because I like having a full belly, me and billions of others. I like automobiles because I have places to go to. I like climate control because I don’t like trying to sleep in a puddle of my own sweat. I like smartphones because having access to the summation of human knowledge appeals to me.

But hey, if Ben & Jerry’s is serious about returning “stolen indigenous land”, it’s on them to demonstrate how serious they really are. A cadre of Jewish students are calling the ice cream company out, daring them to make good on their own words:

Will Ben & Jerry’s surrender the land their corporate headquarters is situated on to Native Americans? I have my doubts. When leftists like Ben & Jerry’s shoot off their mouths like this, it’s usually just to virtue signal. They don’t actually believe what they’re saying. If they did, they’d act accordingly.

Religious Liberty Just Prevailed.

Leave a reply

It would be great if we had nine Supreme Court justices who understood the Constitution. We have six, but that’s still enough to hold the majority.

The first amendment of the Constitution prevailed today, after the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving a website designer who objected to design a website promoting a gay wedding, which was requested by a client.

From NPR.org:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 long ideological lines that the First Amendment bars Colorado from “forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”

Why was this even a question? The first amendment protections for one’s religion does apply to the state of Colorado. What’s more, freedom in principle is opposed to the idea of anyone being coerced in any way. A business merely existing does not create any obligation for that business or any of its employees to take an action. If the business decides that it won’t take an action, even in exchange for money, that’s the choice of the business owner, and anyone in their employ can be expected to direct themselves in a manner consistent with their convictions.

Believe it or not, one’s religion isn’t just a name on a banner to be waved about, then promptly ignored at the dictates of some psychopath who is out to create cultural uniformity. A person’s religion actually has an influence on the way they think, and the decisions that they make. Therefore, one’s religion does influence the way they live.

Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said: “Ms. [Lori] Smith seeks to engage in protected First Amendment speech; Colorado seeks to compel speech she does not wish to provide. As the Tenth Circuit observed, if Ms. Smith offers wedding websites celebrating marriages she endorses, the State intends to compel her to create custom websites celebrating other marriages she does not. … If she wishes to speak, she must either speak as the State demands or face sanctions for expressing her own beliefs, sanctions that may include compulsory participation in ‘remedial . . . training,’ filing periodic compliance reports, and paying monetary fines. That is an impermissible abridgement of the First Amendment’s right to speak freely.”

This is the United States, after all. This is a place where freedom of speech is recognized by its foundational document. Compelled speech, by its nature, cannot be free.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”

Sotomayor’s use of the term “protected class” implies privilege. The ideals of our nation uphold equality of all people in the sight of God, and under the law. There is no special class that can compel anyone else to either speak or take an action, and no one can be deprived of their God-given freedoms without due process.

A Supreme Court Justice is expected to know that.

She would, as you might expect, attempt to frame this as part of a “backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities”. This is, of course, intellectually dishonest, as there are no gender minorities, there are only men and women, and the “sexual minorities” she is alluding to are actually sexual behaviors, and is actually is valid to question the sociological impact of these behaviors.

But even if she’s dishonest and misinformed, at least Sotomayor isn’t getting what she wanted.

Smith who believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, said she wanted to create a custom web-page business for weddings, but could not do so because under Colorado law she would have been forced to create websites that violate her faith. Colorado said it didn’t want to dictate what Smith said in her web designs, but that if her business is open to the public–as it is–it had to serve everyone.

What kind of state compels a business to serve anyone and everyone, just by virtue of being open to the public? I’m trying to wrap my head around this. Is the idea that, in the act of opening or being employed by a business, a person forfeits their personal autonomy? Did the state of Colorado really believe that there was a point in which an individual, complete with freedoms recognized by the Constitution and the superordinate principles of all of western civilization (and not only the United States), was no longer a partaker of those freedoms by virtue of being employed?

Or perhaps this is actually about power. Perhaps certain people get a thrill out of commanding people, and watching them work because they are compelled to. If so, they need to learn pretty quick that having money does not give them power over everyone. Not everyone is willing to give themselves up just for money.

On Friday, the court ruled against the state and for the web designer in a decision that could have profound consequences in Colorado and 29 other states that have laws requiring businesses open to the public to serve everyone, regardless or race, religion, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation.

Or, if NPR were to frame the matter more correctly, the freedoms of people and businesses to act in consideration of their consciences has been recognized in a society that proclaimed these principles to begin with.

A sincere “thank you” to the six Supreme Court justices who voted in favor of the web designer for knowing a few things about the country we live in.