Welcome to the revolution to all who were not aware.
Category Archives: irrational leftism
On the methods and maintenance of the communist revolution under which we appear to be living: Links 1, May 14th, 2023
Before today’s list of proofs of the communist revolution as the current OS of Civilization 0.1, a thought about Disney.
Most people know that Disney is a totally woke corporation. It forces leftist and Marxist principles on employees and clientele alike. And apparently, DeSantis and Disney World are at war of sorts. Ok before the solution to the problem we propose, let’s have a look at Alinsky rules for radicals #4: “RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.”
Ok cool. Rule 4 was not about making anything better, it was a clever tactic of war to destroy something honourable. Well we all know now the dialectical inverse of this rule. Leftists don’t have to live up to anything. So to apply a similar rule to the left would be easy. Rather than destroy a classical institution by stressing its genuinely principled positions with excess expectations, simply make a leftist institution live up to even a fraction of its own principles. And as it happens, Disney, if memory serves, is the world’s only nuclear powered company. (This may have changed since I last looked into it, but it is still likely a private company which has its own nuclear plant, but maybe no longer the only company)
So. Solution and please, if anyone knows Ron DeSantis see if you can get this idea to him:
Make Disney operate 100% on wind and solar.
Problem solved so quickly you would need a caesium clock to measure how long it took.
1. What’s Her Face on her usual list of what appears insanity on the surface, but what are clearly imposing a pseudo-reality in aid of the revolution about a mm below. Specifically in the trial of a man who defended victims from a subway attacker. To better understand AOC’s contribution to this dialectic, its very good to watch this video. Note the name of her PR firm: “Seize the Means Productions”. Note that the current understanding of Marx’s demand that workers seize the means of production has shifted from the factories, which they already have, to the means of cultural production. Which at this point they pretty much also already have.
2. Computing Forever’s analysis of things is always worth the time to watch in our opinion. In this one, he looks at the Hunger Games. Which looks like a far better film after watching this break-down than one might have thought previously.
3. James Lindsay on the initiate language of the left. More accurately, this is a rather pure example of the central aspect of communism which is the dialectic.
Stephen Coughlin’s video on the centrality of dialectics to Marxism is very good. Here it is below.
4. The following video is a better than average example of the push-back against a feminist culture and its impact on good men. (Good, meaning responsible and dedicated husbands and fathers rather than childish irresponsible boys who generally have few problems with the human mating dance since they have nothing to lose.) But if we imagine that the purpose of feminism was a Marxist dialectical effort to destroy the Western family, then videos like this, despite being accurate and offering some catharsis for a large number of men, actually exacerbate the problem. It provides a large dose of factual justification to avoid mating. And in previous articles on VladTepesBlog, we point out that if we were to distill most lines of effort against Western Civilization seem to only have one common goal. Stopping us from reproducing, and all related activities. So Marxism via feminism destroyed the aspects of our culture that made families work about as well as they can, and factual videos explaining how things now are thanks to these efforts, cement the point in the minds of men so that they will be less likely to take the risk and commit to a relationship and reproduce. An interesting way of getting the ideological enemies of the revolution to work towards its goals. Which is actually very common now. And might explain why a lot of videos that appear to be counter-narrative are allowed on YouTube when in fact, they are working towards the goal.
5. Remember this? Very important that we never forget this material because it teaches us SO much about the real nature of our societies today. It might help to decode the word, “Unvaccinated” to what they really mean. Counter-revolutionary. Or in the Soviet Union, ‘Bourgeoisie’. An easier way to think of it would be, ‘middle class’.
Thank you all for reading this site and honouring its efforts with your attention.
President Trump on General Flynn.
Interview: Dr. Kat Lindley on the various ways the WHO are going to remove all national and personal autonomy
Story details at RIAR Foundation.co,
Parents of Josh Alexander removed from teaching jobs – find out the horrifying ‘reasons’ why
We managed to interview Josh Alexander at the court house yesterday where a small group of freedom minded people gathered to support Harold Jonker as he appeared in court and for fingerprinting. Please read details at RAIR Foundation. Interview below.
Canadian Lawyer, Bruce Pardy exposes the logical fallacies and destruction of democratic process during Covid
First, here is what Queen’s University says about Bruce Pardy:
Professor Pardy is a classically liberal legal academic for whom equal application of the law, negative rights, private property, limited government, and separation of powers are foundational to the Canadian and Western legal tradition. A critic of legal progressivism, social justice, and the discretionary administrative state, he has written on a range of pressing legal subjects at the front lines of the culture war inside the law, including environmental governance, climate change, energy policy, human rights and freedoms, professional and university governance, property and tort theory, free markets, and the rule of law. He has taught at law schools in Canada, the United States and New Zealand, practiced civil litigation at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP in Toronto, served as adjudicator and mediator on the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal, and has published and commented widely in traditional and online media. He serves as senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, and helped to birth the Runnymede Society, a branch of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. He spearheaded resistance to and ultimate repeal of the Law Society of Ontario’s statement of principles (SOP) policy that required Ontario lawyers to attest to their ideological purity to maintain their licence to practice. He is one of the co-creators of the Free North Declaration, a public petition and movement to protect civil liberties in Canada from COVID-19 irrationality and overreach.
Professor Pardy is presently on leave from Queen’s Law to serve as the Executive Director of Rights Probe, a division of the Energy Probe Research Foundation, one of Canada’s leading public policy and governance thinktanks. The work of Rights Probe can be found on its website at https://www.rightsprobe.org/.
Just the fact that he is described as a “classical liberal” right away means he knows wha’t going on.
In his testimony at the National Citizens Inquiry last month, he breaks down what happened to government during Covid in a nice tidy package, showing both how the government restructured itself in an undemocratic way, and the series of logiocal fallacies it used to justify its massively ultra-vires actions against the Canadian public.
The only open question is, did the government restructure itself as an authoritarian and undemocratic organ due to Covid, or did it along with other governments, use Covid to do precisely that.
We think its the latter.
National Citizens Inquiry: Daniel Bulford, ex sniper on Trudeau’s RCMP security detail
The fundamentally communist reasoning of Ottawa’s energy plans
The clip below is from the City of Ottawa meeting of April 18th, 2023 where the city took questions on the radical plans to transform the energy grid, and life in Ottawa overall.
The first question asked to Angela Keller-Herzog was about the seeming reluctance of the city to consider what Hydro Ottawa had to say in response to the plan to make Ottawa run on solar and wind.
Herzog’s answer was straight out of one of the early anecdotes from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s. famous book on the workings of the Soviet Union, The Gulag Archipelago.
The example he gives, illustrating the reversal of reality dictating policy, a central axiom of communism, was when the Soviet told the rail engineers that they had to double the amount each train carried on each trip. It was explained to the political officers that the tracks could only handle so much weight and to double the load would lead to catastrophes. The Soviets rounded up those engineers who refused to double the load and shot them. Then doubled the weight of the trains. Catastrophe followed resulting in hundreds of deaths and massive damage. The people who orchestrated that were given the Order of Lenin. (It may have been another honour, it has been a few years since I read book 1)
Listen to Keller-Herzog’s answer about the city not listening to Ottawa Hydro and see if there is a comparison there. The master plan must be supported. The reality of how much you can make by wind and solar is not to be discussed.
The next speaker is using reason to defeat the plan overall, but at the top layer of deception of the plan itself. This means that his objection, while scientifically accurate and verifiable and therefore, ‘true’ still operates on the base assumption that man made CO2 is causing climate change, or more precisely, Global Warming. I would go out on a limb and suggest that he knows the CO2-Global warming connection is utter nonsense, but realizes that our civilization is too far gone into the abyss of scientism to attack the base lie. It has been accepted as axiomatic, both by repetition and by extensive use of Discourse Theory. Still, worth watching as he attacks the plan on the basis of ‘even if true then…’.
The next presenter explains why we have to eat crap we don’t want. The excuse is the Carbon Footprint of food. Which again, is a branch of the base lie, that CO2 causes the world to heat up in a way that is somehow a bad thing. There is no science or reason to the presentation. Just a plan on how to make life less pleasant in order to reduce carbon in agriculture. Something one might suspect is related to this National Post article on Trudeau’s advisor, Mark Carney. Especially the part where he says his plan is to make our lives worse, not better. The presentation on making more plant based options, really means taking away your choice of what you want to eat. Note that prisons are on her list of where food will change.
How Ottawa plans to change your life slide 1
Next is Nigel Ellis. His volume was very low on the video. I had to raise it to the level of the other speakers to be heard. He also played into the CO2 = Global Warming myth, but at least used science to show why the plans to reduce it are nonsense even if we accept the hypothesis as it is.
Karen Bourdeau asks some proper questions, like “When do you plan to ask the residents of Ottawa about your plan to “prohibit automotive oriented land use”. It should not be a rhetorical question because it is a policy that will destroy many generations of labour and development, and end much freedom and liberty. But we all know it is rhetorical. The Politburo doesn’t ask the public what it wants. It appoints experts to speak for the people, that give the answers the politburo wants. She also asks questions that appear to be related to a covert plan to implement 15 minute city type restrictions in Ottawa.
Next is an Ottawa U prof. His volume was very good. Loud even. So I bet you can guess what his politics are. He launches into full scale and undisguised Habermas Discourse Theory attacks against people who merely asked rational questions about the plan to radically transform Ottawa due to alleged CO2 effects on global climate. He expresses outward dismay that they were even allowed to speak and called them “essentially climate deniers”. This is a Frankfurt School dialectic where you destroy the people who disagree with your consensus view you are trying to impose on the majority. Call them names that effectively makes them thought criminals. For a refresher on the formal method of how this works, click through to this video on Marcuse and Habermas and making truth, hate speech.
It is also famously Saul Alinsky Rules for Radical rule XIII if memory serves.
This Prof. also wants a shift from voluntary to mandatory measures. Somehow, indigenous leadership and rights factor in to changing the climate.
Next is Danielle, who tries to steer the ship back towards safe shores by mentioning that even far left wing extremist, Michael Moore made a film exposing the green scam of wind and solar. She is followed by another climate scare advocate who demands more action to lower CO2.
After the delegations is questions to staff. Here’s one that doesn’t get asked. Why is Canada, which seems to be the most vocal nation in terms of pushing the Global Warming scare, actively working on their Century Initiative plan to increase Canada’s population to 100,000,000 people via immigration from hot countries, where their per-capita carbon footprint goes up by FOUR TIMES!
This ‘debate’ was not about competing visions for a better Ottawa or world. This was a confrontation of individual rights Vs. collective authoritarianism. Authoritarianism using any excuse it can make up to justify its actions. If Covid measures didn’t convince anyone that this is the plan, then don’t be surprised with what these people do to us in the name of ‘climate change’.
For a really comprehensive and science based, fact based analysis on the Climate Scare of Global Warming, please watch this video below and maybe take some notes in case you run into a believer.
A clear and concise explanation of how ‘woke’ is Marxism by James Lindsay
For a professional level understanding of all the material covered by Prof. Lindsay, please see Maj. Stephen Coughlin’s essay, Re-remembering the misremembered left: On the strategy and tactics being used to dismantle America
UPDATE:
One of the things this site has done since it started, was compare Islam to Marxism as philosophies and systems of organization for humanity. At a certain point some years ago, we concluded that there was little to no daylight between them in any meaningful way. At least not in terms of human liberties. But the video above contains another data point on another similarity not noticed before.
Marx, he explains near the start, believed all mankind was socialist but didn’t realize it yet. And it is socialists/communist’s job to drag man to socialism which is his natural state.
Islam, Mohammad explains, is how all people are born. So when you ‘convert’ to Islam, Muslims claim you are ‘reverting’ to your natural state. Your original religion to which all people are born. Notice how this philosophy allows some degree of moral justification for foisting their organizational principles on you.
Looking at ‘wokeism’ as a Marxist or Maoist line of effort
1. Wokeism, more Mao than Marx
While what this Prof. says is factually correct, it is also Marxism as a function of the abstraction of Marxist Critical theory as created by purely Marxist think tanks like The Frankfurt School, The Fabian Society, Runnymede and a lot of others. The two minute explainer below shows how what he is calling Paradoxical, is in reality, “Liberating Tolerance” which means zero tolerance for non-communist ideas as written by the Frankfurt School’s Herbert Marcuse. Also, it feels like a classical communist misrepresentation of history, not by this speaker above but by historians in general influenced by very specific Soviet disinformation, that classical Marxist communism was somehow about a more fair redistribution of wealth. Communism was always about the entire package. Culture, economics, all of it. In the early days of the Bolshevik Revolution, they used to hold plays on the streets mocking Christian beliefs and rituals. It was always anti-Christian, and anti-individual. He is certainly correct that the current communist revolution taking place, camouflaged as “wokeness” is indeed closest to Maoism. The Prof. also refers to the “capture” of Western institutions. This is thanks to the work of Antonio Gramsci, a classical marxist who wrote a book about how Mao’s idea of the Long March to conquer the West could be applied to capturing institutions. HIs concept was “The Long March Through the Institutions”. It clearly worked.
It remains important to understand though, that the concept of not letting any idea except leftist ideas be expressed is neither hypocrisy nor paradoxical. It is a dialectic. The prof. does in fact get to that just before the half way mark when he explains the “Marcuse Playbook”. But doesn’t mention that this is one aspect of the dialectic. The dialectic being that all vectors of existence and thought in Western Civilization must by all means be moved to the left eternally in a never ending revolution of destruction. That “liberating tolerance” was one tactic by the Frankfurt School to deploy against certain aspects of Western thought such as freedom of speech. But there are many many more such as Discourse Theory, where all who attempt to use truth in opposition to a narrative such as Global Warming, will be silenced with personal accusations of character flaws under the new Maoism which negate truth by virtue of the flawed character of the speaker. In other words, if you show that in truth there is no global warming, then you are a “climate Denier” and worse, which is an attempt to link you to Nazis who would be Holocaust Deniers and so on.
This is not to say that there is any deception whatsoever in this Professor’s interview. There is not. This is rumination on his thoughts, not criticism. It would be most excellent if the average Westerner was as well versed in these concepts as he is. Then perhaps we could literally laugh and shrug off all these problems which the Marxists have brought us from the dialectic of the sexes (feminism) to the dialectic of the weather. (Global Warming) and right up to the dialectic of sexual dimorphism itself, the ‘trans-scam’. You can and might be murdered if you even are a child going to a school where they believe that men cannot be women just by saying so.
Thesis, counter-thesis, synthesis. Ram one set of opposites together and force them to fuse until there is neither or something new. The dialectic.
I’m positive there are more and better ways of understanding this material and these events than I have described here. I usually point to Stephen Coughlin or James Lindsay. Anyone who would like to critique this analysis for greater clarity could please do so in the comments.
Tucker Carlson for March 29th, 2023 and Liberating Tolerance as applied to ‘gun control’
As is usual, Tucker get it in the 50 ring. Which is exceptional for mass market TV. You simply cannot get a bullseye on mass market TV and expect people to make sense of it.
For the last 1/4 inch into the centre of the dart board, I ask readers to consider the Herbert Marcuse model of changing what he called, “Repressive Tolerance”, meaning a liberal society where everyone can speak and everyone has a fair shot at the prize based on effort and talent as much as possible, into what he called, “liberating Tolerance”. Liberating Tolerance is where anyone who’s ideas the left doesn’t like is prevented from speaking while those who’s ideas are revolutionary and destructive are forced upon us. This is what we see with every dialectic attack on our civilization. The silencing of anyone who has a non-narrative view. In this case, narrative means fictional. And a fiction which must be seen as true, as it is iterated by the state.
Here is a two minute explanation of this process:
Discourse Theory, a Frankfurt School, Marxist think tank concept and offshoot of Marxist Critical Theory, is explained in this post here.
For a complete and proper understanding of the machinery underneath of the events we cannot help but have noticed, especially since 2016 when all the gloves came off, please consider reading this paper by Stephen Coughlin, even if you can just manage 4 pages a day.
Lastly, here is a much longer video of how these semantic tools work. Essentially it is Stephen Coughlin’s explanation but done by a Prof. who was one of three who busted the true nature of the Peer Review process as it exists today. James Lindsay is the Prof who submitted an entirely fake paper to ‘scientific’ journals for peer review, that was littered with politically correct terms, and was accepted for publication. I believe his paper was on rape in a dog park.
Here is another 4 minute explainer video on Repressive tolerance but it misses a critical factor right at the start. The video says: “anyone slightly right of centre…”. The facts are, anything true is now labelled “far right extremist” if that truth interferes with the authority of the narrative. “Safe and effective”, Men being women just by saying so, Global Warming is an existential threat, Islam is the religion of peace and the list grows as each effort runs out of steam.
When this concept is understood, Tucker Carlson’s thesis which is now two nights running, March 28th and 29th, is easily understood as the kinetic version of Liberating Tolerance. In other words, encourage deadly action by a group you can paint as oppressed, so long as their attacks damage the main pillars of civilization, while making damn sure the majority of people it views as oppressors, have no access to force multipliers. Its exactly the same strategy applied to freedom of speech. Hitler used the same method. Make sure Jews don’t have guns but anyone likely to kill one, does.
Three videos explaining Marxism methodology such that it becomes easier to spot it in our institutions
Several years ago now, in what was truly a labour of love and desperation to try and point out what was taking place around the Western world, three videos were transalted from a Polish academic on the nature of communism and communist methodology, in such a way that we may recognize it as it plays out around us and in policy.
This is dense. It is not something you can watch while sipping a Mojito. But it is absolutely worth the effort. Each video covers an important aspect of the things being done to us in every institution as the Communist revolution that has overtaken free and democratic societies entrenches itself. Grab a coffee and check these out please.
It has been said that those that do not understand the strategic aspects of the Marxist lines of effort against us become controlled opposition, even when opposing the revolution. This would be because each line of effort against the West is not about what it appears to be about. Its about creating the conflict. So arguing either side of the issue means the people looking for the synthesis, or total loss of the West in all ways, wins. For example, “Multiculturalism”, which is in and of itself an oxymoron, is about using one culture to destroy another such that at the end you have no culture at all. Just a never ending state dictated set of imposed values. AKA communism. “Multiculturalism” would be more honestly called, Critical Culture theory. Set one culture against another, and both are fused into a synthesis of nothingness.
Hopefully these videos will allow the viewer to see more clearly the strategic aspects of the Marxist revolution taking place in the West, and not get bogged down entirely in the tactical aspects of it.
This is not to say that the tactical should be ignored. Various groups have had victories in opposing things like mask mandates and mRNA injection issues and these must be fought and continue to be fought. But the strategic must be understood to be effective. Think of it like battles and war. Winning the battles is good. Winning the war is critical.
Firstly, explaining Marxism, Homosexuality, artist’s role in the revolution and the Long March through the institutions
Second, we post this one a lot. Explaining how to force a synthetic view on the population. Put another way, manufacture a “consensus” and then dialectically impose that view, usually a false one like Global Warming etc. on the majority.
This third video deals with Semantic Marxism, and stigmatizing the entire culture:
Herbert Marcuse’s Repressive Tolerance as dominant principle at work in Ontario (and everywhere) School Boards
In the second video which was shot at the Durham District School Board at some point in Q1 of this year, we see what should be familiar to everyone by this point, even if people are not familiar with the strategy at work and still refer to what they see as ‘leftist hypocrisy”.
Below, is a 4 minute primer on Repressive Tolerance which is worth seeing first before watching the School Board meeting. For those who want to know more about Marcuse’s semantic marxism, please search YouTube for James Lindsay and Stephen Coughlin with additional terms, Repressive Tolerance or Marcuse. Also this video is very good and very relevant.
Below is a video from the Durham District School Board in Ontario. See if you can spot the many ways in which Marcuse’s Repressive Tolerance is the principle used to deflect parent’s concerns about the collection of sexual data on young children.
This video is unedited from the original taken from Facebook, other than the background noise, which was considerable, was removed and some speech levelling was applied.
For those that wish a deeper and academic dive into the specifics of the strategy used to revolutionize our school boards, and for that matter, every aspect of our civilization, we recommend reading 5 pages a day of Stephen Coughlin’s essay on the Left’s Tactics to Transform America.
Additionally, Marxism and homosexuality, easily extended to the “trans” movement.
Stephen Coughlin with V4F: Explaining the information battlefield
This is a well done 9 minute explainer video taken from an amazing podcast with Stephen Coughlin and Vets4Freedom. Please watch, learn, enjoy and most of all, spread.
The full video is below:
Stephen’s documents can be found at https://unconstrainedanalytics.org
Please click through to V4F’s YouTube channel and give it a thumbs up if you would.
The point is never the point, and global warming
The following short clip is a single question taken from a video of dual presentation on ‘Climate Change’ given by Action4Canada last week in Ottawa. The whole presentation, which richly deserves to be seen, will be available as soon as possible.
This is a question from one audience member to the first speaker of two discussing ‘Climate change’,and who, by her question, is pointing out a herd of elephants in the room:
This clip is a magnificent example of how we all become controlled opposition when we do not understand the larger strategy.
With the left, the point is never the point. The revolution, is always the point.
How does this apply here. Well, its clear that the same people who are working three shifts to take away your privacy and liberties under the rubric of Global Warming/Climate Change, are the same people replacing the population, or if not replacing, diluting them, of Western nations to the point that there is no coherence to them anymore. This means no shared values, history or sense of joint existence.
The questioner makes the point that each person who moves from a hot place to a cold place increases their ‘carbon footprint’ by 4.2X on average. So how can the same policy makers do this while also claiming to want to stop Climate Change?
At this point let’s look at the difference between a mistake and a policy.
A mistake is where you try to achieve an objective, and when you notice your methods are not achieving the results you want, you stop using them, and try something else. A policy is where you see you are in fact getting the results you want and you continue and or double down on it, no matter what you say you want or are trying to achieve. The immigration and climate change frauds have both been going on for far far too long for this to be incompetence. Writing it off as such, stupidity, ignorance, hypocrisy, greed, this is what makes us controlled opposition. Even unwittingly so. Because we are arguing the point, which it never is.
This is not to say that the architects of all these things do not fully take advantage of these lesser attributes of man. Corporate and individual greed is most definitely one of the ways the architects managed to entice powerful people and institutions into being a part of the overall plan.
When you argue against abortion, ‘trans-rights’ and all the other not-really-the-issue-issues which are tearing us all apart in the absence of a greater understanding, it assists those with the meta plan to control us all through a total philosophical revolution. A revolution at the core of who we are.
It is obvious that the people pushing these issues and policies do not believe in them. Al Gore bought a beachfront villa for USD $8,875,000 in California in 2010, presumably in part, from the proceeds of his movie warning us all that the oceans were rising and would swallow up coastal cities within a few years. Flashing forward to today, The Oligarchs use private gets to get to the brothels in Davos every year for the WEF hedonism and megalomania festival. (Ever see the menu? It isn’t cricket)
This is because the issues themselves are meant to be destructive to our civilization, as are the ‘solutions’ to them. To divide, to dissolve any coherence we may have as a people. It is also to have the state be able to arbitrarily impose a pseudo-reality on us at a whim, especially destructive ones, and have us accept, believe and defend them. (The first example in this author’s lifetime would be Trudeau Senior’s arbitrary, expensive and destructive imposition of the Metric System in Canada. More on that in another post)
So a phoney problem is invented that requires a solution that the architects wanted all along but the public would never accept. In fact we have national constitutions preventing exactly these scenarios. This so called solution will control critical aspects of the public’s lives. Aspects which they would never have willingly given up were it not for the ‘problem’. But the phoney problem media blasts at us night and day is the device used to get the public to accept the only “acceptable ‘solution” to it. (Think vaccines) Thesis, counter-thesis, solution.
Also note: Real problems are never to be addressed; the drastically falling sperm rates in men. The paving of the best farmlands in Canada to build gargantuan brutalist beehives for massive (debatably) legal and illegal immigration, with no consideration of how to feed these new people that we are aware of. Massive spike in dangerous recreational drug use, enormous health impacts of gene therapy vaccines, which cannot even be acknowledged by the enemy-propaganda networks that our media has become.
That is not to say that we should not understand these things on a case by case. Small policy victories can be made if you can argue reality against the imposed pseudo reality, or put simply, the total BS reasons to create a policy no one would want otherwise. But only if you can do it publicly enough that it embarrasses the policy makers. I have seen it with my own eyes. But it’s the publicity of showing obvious reality that makes the difference and again, at a small scale, like a school board. This is because the policy makers know damn well the policies they want are based on lies. But then sometimes larger scale powers will designate those who insist on reality to be terrorists, and eliminate that line of defence, such as, like parents who speak truth to school boards. The children must be seen as property of the state and doubly so what they believe. The responsibility for ensuring that ownership is all the parents have left.
If the policy makers actually wanted to mitigate the problems they claim are the issues, then proving they are wrong would work to change the policy, even without public scrutiny.
Think about how many fields in which we have all had to become minor experts in the past few decades. Climatology and virology for sure. For some of us, Islam and other issues every so often. Y2K, ozone holes, purple loosestrife, zebra mussels, killer bees, africanized honey pigs. This is because all these things are being used to negate us as a people, a history and a culture. Understanding these things well enough to know what we are being told is false is great and all. But how often does it work to explain to others who need to believe the government is benign? I would guess close to never.
The videos of the speakers from Friday night’s event should be available soon. And people should watch them. They are excellent expert presentations on climate reality. Understanding them will make you bullet proof in climate discussions. The result of which is people stop shooting at you. Getting them to understand that this isn’t about climate science is another thing altogether.
At some point the question always comes up in one form or another, ‘Why would they lie to us about all this’?
Answering this is very dangerous because unless really well explained, you will be dismissed as a nut no matter how on top of the truth you actually are. And frankly, even if it is really well explained. You have to have an audience willing to consider that they are misled as opposed to waiting for an opportunity to dismiss you and everything you think from their uncluttered intellectual cosmos.
For those who figured out early that the gene-therapy shots were a bad idea, discussions with others usually went loosely like this:
[Vaxx Skeptik] well, science science, data data, experts with nothing to gain and everything to lose show us that…
[Normie] Ok Well then if that is true, then why would they….
And that is when it all goes off the rails. You could convince someone that the vaxx is bad using reason, science and evidence. But if you dare tread into the motives for agencies promoting the shots, you move from what you know and can prove into dark conspiracies and ad hominem that even if true, will cost you your listener. In fact being asked why they would do this is a kind of trap, whether the asker is conscious of that or not.
Dr. Peter McCullough early on was brilliant in his approach. He would testify to the facts of heart damage from the gene-therapy injections, and when asked why this was being done to us, would refuse to touch the subject. He would just stick to cardiology. That was the right approach in terms of not being immediately dismissed. He did point out though, that the official literature contained curious omissions, leaving it to the listener to figure out why those omissions existed. He also explained the curious censorship of his factual documents on Covid19. This leads us to the reality on these narratives without saying that in fact, narratives is what they are. One doesn’t have to censor truth, facts and expert opinion unless you are trying to hide it.
So what Dr. McCullough did is give facts that leave the listener to come to rational conclusions about the next layer problems. This can work.
So asking everyone to abandon their jobs, families, hobbies and other interests to become an expert on every set of meta-lies imposed on us to get a world of stateless people with no rights is not a practical solution. Most people won’t even bother to read a single paper or watch a decent video showing the counter-narrative materials.
But trying to get people to understand how to look at all things in official media and see what they are designed to do, might work. Still, it is critical that we all must continue to fight the small fights we chose to take on. Whether it is the bogus trans-rights issues used to make monsters out of your children with surgery and drugs while the same people ban books like Dr. Seuss and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for somehow being dangerous to children, or forcing your children to endure male fetishists to read kid’s books to them – yeah fight it if you can endure the Discourse Theory attacks you will be under as a consequence. We have to keep doing this. But sooner or later we have to come to understand that these issues are not the real fight.
The real fight is against a total Marxist revolution attempting to destroy every single aspect of our existence, using issues from the sanctity of life (abortion and MAiD) right on down through our cultures, to what type of car you drive.
Eeyore for VladTepesBlog.
Thank you for your time.
Tucker Carlson for February 24th, 2023
It should be noted that any reference to the US secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg, without explaining that his father was the founder and #1 fan of the Antonio Gramsci society, and himself translated Gramsci’s Prison Diaries into English, is an error of omission that prevents any understanding of Buttigieg’s actions for what they are. Specifically Marxist dialectics, and in no way incompetence. Furthermore, the fact that he is homosexual is not identity politics. It is a distraction from the fact that he is where he is because he is a communist.
Identity politics is a smoke screen. When Clinton was running for president each time, the narrative was launched that we must vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Meanwhile the exact same people and organizations that launched her campaign and designed it to be focused that way, also launched military grade critical-theory attacks against a staggeringly competent Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin.
Attacks so well orchestrated they even dusted off Tina Fey and put her on Saturday Night Live.
As an aside, I had a discussion with a then-friend who is a Democrat and leftist in every way at around that time. I asked him why he hated Sarah Palin so much. He answered mocking a woman’s voice, “I can see Russia from my house”. I let it go for a while and a few minutes later, I asked him, ‘Do you think people who can’t tell the difference between a TV comedian and a candidate for high office should be allowed to vote?” to which he answered no.
I then reminded him that it was Tina Fey who said “I can see Russia from my house” while Sarah Palin had actually answered a question on foreign policy experience very well showing that she had to deal with Canada and Russia and other countries across the Arctic regularly as governor of Alaska, and therefore had more foreign policy experience than any of the other candidates for president or VP. (paraphrasing).
So while Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton both identified as women at that point, only the leftward leaning ones get our support. The same for homosexuals. Pete gets to be celebrated for who or what he has sex with. But non-communist ones like Glen Greenwald, must be ignored, and on occasion demonized and destroyed. Like Candice Owens or other African descended Americans who actually like the US and Western values where destroyed by Marxist allegedly black-rights groups like BLM.
In other words, it is not, nor is it ever hypocrisy to note how identity politics is played to advance the leftist power grab. It is a smokescreen so you won’t notice who really is in control and why.