It’s Friday, I ain’t got no job, and I ain’t got shit else to do, so here’s this:
Two interrelated questions from a new reader, Curious in Japan:
I live in Japan, and I read the US coverage of SARS-2 from afar. I noticed that The Illness here in Japan is almost a non-starter, in terms of bodies with illness/severe illness/death. And that’s with sick people crammed into subways everyday, as is the popular style. What are your thoughts on how/why the US coverage dismisses/ignores Japan’s lack of New York style death & disease?
Japan? Never heard of it!
Sorry, that seems like a lame joke, but when it comes to solipsism, the American Media puts the average teenage girl to shame. The American Media doesn’t cover anything that happens outside the USA. In fact, if they can help it, they don’t cover anything that happens outside of New York, LA, or Tubman DF, unless it somehow advances The Narrative. I am 100% certain that when the St. Floyd thing happened, more than one veteran “news” reporter had to look up where, exactly, this place called “Minneapolis” is.
One thing a lot of us here noticed straight off about the Great Plague was that, if it were anywhere near as bad as the doom-mongers insisted, certain parts of the world were in real trouble. India, for one. Same deal with places like Mexico — huge, crowded cities, no medical infrastructure to speak of. Even Japan, we badthinkers hypothesized, would be screwed, since even though their medical care is first rate, their population density is ridiculous, and totally dependent on public transportation to boot. Same thing with the homeless population right here in the USA — if the pandemic is real, guys like us said, then the homeless problem is going to take care of itself…
None of that happened. The Media did briefly try to gin up a panic about India… at the start of summer 2021. That is, a full 15 months or so after the initial panic. This was right when the buyer’s remorse was really starting to set in in re: Totally Legit Joe, and while correlation isn’t causation, I think we can go ahead and assume in this case. But as to Mexico, Africa, Asia, the US homeless… not a peep, and unless things like “living in a garbage dump” and “living exclusively on spam and bum wine” give complete immunity to COVID, that’s all the proof you need that the thing was a sham from the get-go.
One last interesting note about Japan: Back when mask hysteria was just getting started — after the Media admitted that Fauci et al were just lying about masks being useless, in other words, but before the Gauleiter made them mandatory — Japan was briefly held up as the paragon of “masks work.” Supposedly everyone in Japan wore their mask all the time — you know how blindly obedient those Orientals are! — and so they had only 800 known cases or whatever, even in Tokyo. Funny, too, how that kinda sorta just… disappeared…
The second Japan-related question:
Re: The Olympics, how is the organization of the events register in the USA, if at all? Locally, everyone involved is pulling in opposite directions, it seems. “Game on!” “ State of Emergency!” “Fans allowed, but no foreigners!” “Scratch that, no fans at all!” I’m getting dizzy trying to keep up.
The Olympics? Never heard of it!
Ok, sorry, I’ll stop now. But seriously: The Olympics are getting zero coverage over here from what I can see, except for the usual suspects doing the usual things. There’s some negress upset that they played the National Anthem while she got her bronze medal or whatever at the qualifiers (or whatever; not sure) — apparently she had some big narcissistic gesture planned, and playing the anthem at that particular time messed it up. On our side, there’s a tempest in a teapot about some tranny weightlifter who, being in continued possession of big hairy balls, is crushing all the women’s records. In short, and as much as I hate to give them credit for having any brains at all, I think even the American Media is smart enough to figure out that the Olympics are going to be a massive own goal for the Totally Legit Joe regime if they cover it… so they’re just not going to cover it. Because COVID, or whatever.
From a reader who shall remain anonymous, since I’m not sure what handle to use:
What are the implications of the military and police Oaths to the Constitution being voided by the fall of the Republic?
My answer might be we’ll see when they try to really use the military.
Here’s a great example of how theory and practice diverge. In theory, a government that abrogates the social contract is no government at all. This was the Founders’ explicit reasoning: If His Majesty’s government violates the rights of its subjects, then its subjects are under no obligation to obey it — indeed, are required to resist it, since they are no longer subjects at all. John Locke would have many choice words for the Totally Legit Joe regime, all of which would probably boil down to “you are under no obligation to an occupying power, except that which the occupiers can impose by force, and only so long as you are physically under duress.”
In practice, though, it’s the very guys who should be resisting who will be the ones imposing the obligations by force. I mean no slander on soldiers and cops when I say that they’re not generally men of principle — men of principle are one in a million. Or, at least, they were — these days, I doubt it’s even one in ten million. For most everyone, “cop” or “soldier” is just a job, no different than “postal clerk” or “phone monkey” or “Diversity outreach coordinator.” No one expects those guys to resign en masse and take to the bush; why should cops and soldiers be any different? If anything, they’ll be worse — the cops at least — because one of the main reasons people get into those kinds of jobs is that those jobs allow them to boss other people around. Lots more opportunity to do that under Totally Legit Joe, as I’m sure you’ll agree.
urbando has a few interrelated questions:
as a historian, what criteria do you use to judge the authenticity of the written historical record? I suppose that, given unlimited resources, time, and interest, one could devote oneself to researching, digging up artifacts, and analyzing the agendas of contemporary written accounts of some particular historical event, but Western history is thousands of years old. We lack the ability to re-examine the entire historical record to determine whether we’re just being fed a line of BS.
They’re right about red pills – once you’ve seen something contrary to the BS we’re fed you can never un-see it. How many red pills are there in the historical record? What do you think about the likelihood that we’re all operating under various historical false pretenses?
I use the only criterion we really have, which is horse sense, the smell test, call it what you will. As someone mentioned in the comments the other day, history is “the shipwreck of time,” meaning that the sources we have are whatever happened to wash up on the beach. Edwin Johnson, from last week’s mailbag, used this knowledge to construct his thesis that “the Middle Ages didn’t really happen,” and according to Wiki, at least, he was one of the first to advance the “Jesus never really existed” position, the one that your more tiresome evangelical atheists still haul out from time to time. That’s one I like, actually, because it highlights the limitations of the biz:
I like to compare Jesus to Socrates. Most historians would unthinkingly accept that Socrates was a real guy, but consider: We only know of his life from a scattering of ancient sources, some of which were written long after his supposed life on earth ended, and all of which contain discrepancies and contradictions. Not only that, but these sources have all the problems the Gospels do — nothing from the ancient world comes down to us in a completely reliable, full transmission, since they’re all manuscripts copied and recopied hundreds, probably thousands of times, with all the certainty of error that entails. And so forth.
In other words, the life of Socrates is either extremely well-attested — “a handful of sources” is orders of magnitude better than you get for most ancient individuals — or extremely dubious, depending on how you want to look at the nature of historical evidence. And the debate over the nature of the evidence is exacerbated by people who engage in it. Evangelical atheists are human toothaches, but they’re right that Christian apologists have a very bad, very counterproductive habit of claiming things that the evidence doesn’t support. For instance, I’ve been told that every ancient copy of every Gospel is letter-perfect, down to the last detail. If that’s true, then it’s a real miracle, on the order of raising Lazarus from the dead, because historical evidence just doesn’t work like that. Claiming it does seriously undercuts your own case.
Usually the best you can do is judge motives. Have we drawn some mistaken conclusions about historical events, including big important ones? Undoubtedly. Indeed, I’d be out of a job if we haven’t. But are we operating under “false pretenses”? I dunno. That implies that someone is deliberately lying, or, at the most charitable, seeing what they want to see. In the case of the guys who maintain that the Gospels are all letter-perfect, yeah, I’ll go with false pretenses. Same with the “Jesus was just a fable” crowd, since in their case, they deliberately set the bar of “acceptable evidence” so high that it can’t possibly be met — as occasional coauthor Nate Winchester once put it (quoting from memory), they expect the evidence to be so overwhelming that anyone who read it would immediately become a Christian on the spot… but this evidence must be recorded by a non-Christian.
With the onset of the Covid hoax, it is apparent there is a stark divide between those in the cult and those out. A precursor to this emerged with the sharp divide between Chick-fil-A fanatics and those who don’t get it. This divides families, such as mine. Which side of the divide are you on? Is Chick-fil-A the greatest chicken sandwich ever and worthy of a 45 min drive thru wait? Or is this a mad crowd deal? What triggered this?
Someday some fascinating history will be written on the Great Crispy Chicken Sandwich Wars, but alas, it won’t be written by me. I mentioned that my summer job in college was one of those boiler room type phone operations. To keep us working at peak efficiency, the bosses provided lunch. For whatever reason, one summer the bosses must’ve gotten a hell of a deal from the local Chick-fil-A franchise, because that’s all we got. Literally ALL we got, every day, all summer. To this day I can’t pass a Chick-fil-A without getting a slight twinge of nausea. I remember liking them the first fifty or sixty times — nothing special, but tasty enough — but now I think I really would eat the plants-and-bugs diet our overlords have planned for us, rather than have another Chick-fil-A. Sorry, I’ll have to take a pass on this question.
We talk about the Communist Left’s “Long March” through the institutions.
Here’s what I started thinking about: in order to achieve their goals they knew they would be planting trees for their grandchildren to sit under so to speak, (to use one of the more wholesome allegories we use on our side).
But Communism is an atheist, materialist worldview. So how did they manage to convince so many people to be willing to work (and even give their lives) for something that they would never reap the rewards of? At least the Jihadis think they’re going to heaven to bang virgins for eternity after the best blows them to pieces. The atheist Communist believes he ceases to exist upon death, so why give ones’ life to a cause for which he will never experience the rewards?
I hope that makes sense. Curious for your take.
First off, nice to see another female handle around here… if, you know, that’s how you identify. We don’t judge. But this place is a sausage fest at the best of times — I guess talking about Cat Fancy and assorted phenomena will do that — so a little diversity is nice. Anyway, on to the question:
This is an example of the “emergent behavior” the Z Man is always going on about. “The Long March” is a post hoc description of a series of events — a “narrative,” if you will — not a conscious plan.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Taken literally, this means there must be someone still wandering the earth who was present at Jesus’s interrogation by the Pharisees, because He hasn’t come back yet. “The Wandering Jew” was the medieval legend built up around this hypothetical guy.
Marxism has a similar, but much much worse, problem, in that, as Jennifer7084 notes, Marxism is the most thoroughly materialistic philosophy ever devised. On its own premises, Marxism is pointless, since even if we live to see the Worker’s Paradise, we only get to enjoy it for our threescore-and-ten, after which it’s ashes to ashes. Better to pass those threescore-and-ten in the land of milk and honey, I guess, than not, but in the end we’re all just hairless apes whiling away our pointless hours under an utterly indifferent sun.
Rational people realize this, which is why rational people aren’t Marxists. But that, in itself, is your answer: It’s the struggle itself that gives their sad little lives meaning, not the entirely hypothetical — indeed, exquisitely pointless, on its own premises — end. The reason Marxism appeals so spectacularly to eggheads is precisely that: They already live in the closest thing to the land of milk and honey any human is ever likely to experience. Academia is a 24/7 job — that’s “24 hours a week, 7 months a year” — and they get, on average, over $100 large for it. College towns, the faculty ghettos anyway, are the safest places in America. Every single thing in the college town ecosystem is explicitly designed to cater to the professors’ every whim. It’s already the Worker’s Paradise…. and they’re bored stiff. Fighting for The Revolution gives their sad, pathetic existence some meaning.
Why does the charade really continue? The most obvious example is the now hundreds of videos of Sundown Joe since late 2019 bumbling and falling over himself with diagnosable dementia that’s obvious to anyone. Yet the media, the uniparty, heck most people out there refuse to even acknowledge it. It’s like Weekend at Bernie’s, but a tragedy, and so surreal.
That sounds flip, I realize, but not only is it the best answer I can come up with, I think it’s the answer. Normie still has his sportsball and his backyard grill and some stuff to put on it, however temporarily. Compared to the widespread… “difficulties,” to use no stronger term, that would result from even the acknowledgement that Totally Legit Joe is having issues. Real change won’t come until Normie feels a real pinch…
…but because “inertia” is the answer, that means the pinch is coming a lot sooner than anyone expects. That’s the way these things always work, which is terrifying.
From Some Guy:
How long before people realize we’re really being conquered by the sub-continentals? Everyone blames the parentheses crowd or the Chinese, but no one looks at who holds the most sway in the tech sector, which is the new power center in America. Heels-up Harris didn’t get the job because of her black half…
Dunno. Those guys have the very serious advantage of not being taken seriously. A legacy of the Raj, perhaps? Also they don’t form public pressure groups; they just do their thing quietly behind the scenes. And if we’re being honest here, I can think of worse overlords. The Chinese are awful, and the Subcontinentals are in some ways worse… but look: They are open, virulent, take-no-prisoners racists. Real racists, of the “dude, the KKK just called, they think you should tone it down a bit” variety. Not that I admire racism, mind you — I think it’s very, very bad — but 99% of the problems in this sick sad world boil down to Whites’ inability to say “No, we won’t be doing that, because it’s fucking primitive and disgusting.” The Chinese and Subcontinentals do not have this problem. Perhaps, with a few generations under their tutelage, we’ll reacquire that skill.
From dave b:
I was a skeptic on covid the day it started because the same people pushing it were the usual suspects on everything – the gummit, the business cocksuckers, the commies, the whole worthless dreck of humanity. I was validated right away with the truth abut the models came our – people who believe in computer models are a special kind of ignorant and stupid. But my friends who became covid zombies all said, gee, how can the whole world fall for a scam, it must be true if the US and China and everyone believes it. My response has always been people of all race creeds and colors are retards so why expect otherwise?
But it got me to thinking. How did they all became retarded in the same way? TPTB in the West will do anything to divide us to keep us from noticing that they are stealing everything and it is all falling apart. Race, gender, whatever works, and covid is just another tool to divide us and keep us distracted. By why the whole world? Why this obsessive desire to stifle dissent on everything, on the use of ivermectin as a preventative and cure?
Because Karl Marx is a jealous god, and he shall have none before him.
Again, I know that sounds flip, but it’s true. Marxists are convinced that they are the sole possessors of TORA, The One Right Answer. Add an “h” to the end of that if you feel you must.
If you’ve got TORA, then by definition there’s all within TORA, nothing outside TORA, nothing against TORA.
Everyone in Our Thing has experienced the unique frustration of being able to construct the Left’s case far better than they can. Coming up with a Constitutional justification for Obamacare, for example — a real one, I mean, not the Admiral Ackbar-style “It’s a tax!” — is a snap; anyone familiar with the original Proggies from the Gilded Age can do it easily. The problem, though, is that our logical, Constitutionally-airtight case, being based in the real world as it is, acknowledges that there are some tradeoffs, and therefore some downsides…
…and this the Left cannot abide. For you see, they have decided that “universal health care” is part of TORA, and therefore there are NO downsides. At all. There can’t be, because TORA is like the Thomistic conception of God: A unity of all good, undifferentiated, without shape or limit or even the possibility of change. Thus Obama insisting, in all apparent sincerity — and his believers believing, in all apparent sincerity — that a huge new government program will actually lower taxes and improve services, because “universal health care” is Good, and “lower taxes” is Good, and of course it goes without saying that government programs are Good, and therefore, being Good, all these things must be true and cannot conflict, no, not ever, world without end amen.
That’s it for this week, gang. Shine on, you crazy diamonds.Loading Likes...