“I’m saying what I care about is the reality of goodness, not the perception of it. And what I see all over the place is people who care about looking good while doing evil.” – Elon Musk (Interview 2023)
Section 1: The Evil Bundle of Sticks
11
I was standing on a crowded subway train where all the seats were taken. A man acting strangely walked on the train. Other passengers were afraid and got up to let the spooky person have a seat. Bad traditions spread when we let unhinged people get their way, and we allow intolerant groups to manipulate society. I realized that to stop the madness, we need the courage to hold on to our seats and protect our spaces from the crazies.
Both Christians and Muslims will punish people who disagree with them. How could such a rude tradition remain so successful? Conservative politicians like to claim that society has lost traditional values, and they think religion can restore these values. They ignore how improvement happens when a society becomes less religious. For example, people do not stone people in secular societies. However, instead of examining these historical facts, Christians often focus on how Jesus has improved their lives, claiming this change is evidence of God’s presence. Have you ever met a Christian who equates every good feeling with Jesus? The follower of Mohammed, Buddha, and Krishna also claim their ways improve lives. People seem to have a religious instinct since all known cultures cultivate this madness. What if this madness distinguishes modern people from earlier forms of people? The expansion of religion might coincide with the development of art and other technologies. Balanced people did not need these silly activities. Perhaps the balanced tribes avoided the unhinged tribes. They let the crazy people take over the land. This allowed the crazy people to take over the world, and the balanced people went extinct. We inherited the sickness.
Today, the craziness keeps getting crazier. We are living in the early stages of the information age. With information becoming more easily available, people should be able to make informed decisions. Instead, we find people who are more interested in supporting their political team than saying the truth, and the popular media keeps us wasting time on unnecessary disagreements. A cultural war began in July 2011. Before that month, atheists would gather to talk. They were happy, enjoying the wit and humor of Richard Dawkins, while encouraging people with different points of view to share their thoughts. Then, one day, an evil feminist showed up. Perhaps this feminist did not want people to share different points of view, and did not want humor or happiness. So the feminist said that the meetings needed to be safer. Later that night, a man followed the feminist into an elevator and asked the feminist if they could get coffee together. The feminist posted a video about the uncomfortable incident. Dawkins then posted sarcastic comments that the feminists did not like (Dickson, 2011). An online argument began.
Instead of talking to critics, the feminists blocked people on social media. Anyone who felt the feminists were being ridiculous was accused of being a rape apologist who encouraged online harassment. Instead of learning from each other, both sides considered the other side to be overreacting, and each side believed the other side’s reaction justified their own opinion. This cultural war expanded into mainstream culture after Dawkins’s supporters began referring to their opponents as “social justice warriors.” Different groups adopted this term and used it to describe overly zealous Progressives. A liberal college at the University of California, Berkeley, prevented Dawkins from speaking at its facility. People came forward and said that colleges should allow everyone to talk. Elitists hate it when common people step out of line. The students began to protest those who advocated for free speech. A sneaky communist social media club called ANTIFA joined these riots and would mercilessly beat people (Ngo, 2021). Once liberals start a riot, they never seem to want to end it. They keep attacking people for week after week after week, and they will do it in more than one city. A concerned libertarian named Gavin McInnes started a club called the Proud Boys to stop the attackers.
We all like to think we are on the right side of a conflict, so we often overlook the times when our side contributes to the conflict. Eventually, both sides will hate the other side because both sides think the other side hates. Imagination allows them to equate certain speech with hate speech. The biggest complainers don’t even need to get any hate when the accusations become imaginary. People in a groupthink often argue against what they believe the opposing side to be, and they seldom view their opponents as respectable individuals with legitimate concerns.
The cultural divide has widened to the point where news broadcasts spend every day complaining about the opposing side. Remember when liberal meant flexible, easygoing, and hard to offend? They do not seem to be that way anymore. For example, find any gathering of liberals and tell them that a famous conservative got arrested. Notice how joyful they become. Have liberals always been this way, or did they become this way after our movies and songs portrayed traditional people as the bad guys? People on Liberal news networks such as CNN and MSNBC have become so obsessed with punishing people that they give the message that not prosecuting a person is tyranny. These liberals pretend to be the compassionate ones, yet they believe that democracy will fail if they do not punish an opponent.
Ibrim Kendi wants the government to end bad practices in capitalism (Kendi, 2019). Supposedly, equity can occur when a committee decides who receives resources. Such a Ministry of Love would also manage our behavior. I would not be surprised if such a complicated ministry abused its power. Capitalist countries are not perfect, but at least some of them allow civil rights. Socialists want to make choices for you, and they will burn down every small business to create a world where everyone depends on their centralized administration. And when such a centralized government goes bad, nothing will be around to stop it.
After World War II, the United States was powerful enough to choose the path of openness and honesty. Instead, policymakers created sneaky organizations like the CIA that manipulated the world secretly. President Eisenhower warned us about an industrial complex run by a few (Eisenhower, 1961). I grew up around bureaucrats who worked for military intelligence, and I can tell you a little about them. Most of them had graduate degrees from Ivy League colleges. They were the kinds of men who said their prayers at night. Concepts such as love and compassion were high priorities for them, and they read books about morals and ethics. So why didn’t they implement the great utopia they were supposed to give us? Because they don’t know how, no one has ever built the correct society before, and no one has any idea what the first move should be.
Did you ever notice in old pictures of black people being lynched that the people doing the lynching are usually dressed like businessmen? These are people who would read newspapers, and the same corporate press that controlled the truth back then continues to control the truth now. The same kind of people who believed the press back then believe the press now. Basically, educated people who think they are better than everyone else. This privileged class is no longer made up of only white people. It has expanded to include people of all races and ethnicities. When I grew up in Brazil, I noticed how cruelly rich people could treat their servants. The problem is not white privilege. Most of the servants were white, and liberal blacks were among the cruelest masters. The cruel people did not see themselves as cruel. They consider themselves virtuous and compassionate leaders.
Simply calling yourself compassionate is not enough. Goodness needs to be found and built. And promises are not enough. After the Republican president got the country into endless wars and too much spending, the people were ready for change. The Democrat Barack Obama promised change. In those days, the Democrats had almost complete control over both government and Culture. They are a huge party, and they could have found some good ideas within their party to make some good changes. They had the press, the University administrators, Hollywood, and the rich and famous all on their side. They even had sneaky organizations with billions of dollars, such as USAID. Just imagine all the things the Democrats could have done. Instead, they used their influence to force people to be more politically correct.
Most people have no idea what the word Fascism means and use it to refer to any political idea they think is bad. The original Italian Fascism developed out of a Hegelian belief that made the state the sole source of reality. It was incompatible with the American sense of reality, where individuality does exist. Ordinary Americans are unlikely to adopt a view that takes away all freedom. On the other hand, a Hegelian view of reality is a popular perspective of people who want to dictate what others can say. It is the default view of many teachers and journalists. The word “fascist” comes from a Latin word meaning a bundle of sticks. You might not like the other guy’s thoughts, but WrongThink does not turn people into an evil bundle of sticks. The fear of WrongThink turns people into an evil bundle of sticks.
Section 2: How Feminism Poisoned Everything
11
Business schools teach kids to see opportunity. Science schools teach kids to look for potential. The humanities departments teach kids to see conflict. Socialists, Progressives, and Leftists agree that everyone else is wrong. These advocates use the school to invent words that support this agreement. Minds become part of a repetitive loop, and people lose the ability to think beyond it. Unfortunately, our news reporters and politicians are part of this insane establishment, and they help divide society.
A media critic created a series of videos about sexism in video games. The videos were mostly harmless commentary from a feminist perspective. Some gamers disagreed with the videos and asked to talk with the critic. This feminist considered those gamers to be garbage people and claimed to be threatened by gamers. More feminists used this situation to complain about their personal lives and connect their lived experiences with social grievances against patriarchy, which they learned about in social studies classes. The gamers became targets for their vindictiveness. The Washington Post published an article called “The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read” (Dewey, 2014). The article presented the feminist perspective. It does not take into account the gamer’s perspective. Other news services publish nearly identical articles as if they copied the same script. After the gamers asked for honesty in journalism, the establishment news media continued to vilify the gamers, calling the gamers “a harassment campaign.” Eventually, the media critic tried to get the United Nations to silence the gamer (Yiannopoulos, 2015). All this bad publicity would have caused other groups to apologize to the feminists, but the gamers refused to bend the knee.
That was when I realized that the most popular new media had become a single, biased voice that would cancel any alternative voice. The fact that few, if any, journalists bothered to speak with the gamers suggests that most major news services no longer practice investigative journalism. And the Journalist seldom says the names of the gamers because an anonymous opponent is easy to lie about. I do not know who is writing the articles for major newspapers. It sounds like interns who had just finished their Gender Studies classes, where they were taught how to publish articles that devalue the opinions of thousands of people. Fake news can no longer be trusted.
Were the gamers part of a harassment campaign? Every online group has people who send aggressive messages. One side will accuse the other of sending abusive messages, while failing to notice all the insults their side throws at the other. I have never seen reliable evidence to show that one group sends more hateful messages than another, and anyone who claims to be a victim might not be innocent. People who complain to get attention sometimes exaggerate. And after all the raving by the feminists, which made the gamers sound like the most significant threat since the black death, no one was harmed. Feminists even ran for their lives, as no one pursued them. No one was ever after them.
You might not care that a group of sexually undesirable women disrespected a group of sexually undesirable men. Still, the Gamers were part of a larger movement of people who felt that Leftists were taking the entertainment out of entertainment. This culture war eventually spread to the rest of society. It ultimately divided the nation.
Put on a MAGA hat and try walking around a liberal university. Someone will try to start something. Do not fight back. They are trying to provoke you, knowing the popular press will say you were the aggressor. They will say that your clothing represents hate. For Patriots, the Make America Great Again hat represents unity for all Americans who work together to make America great. My old friend, the CNN viewer, thinks the hat divides society. The viewer is unaware that Marxists had been working on the division long before the hat came along. In the 1960s, the skilled intellectual Herbert Marcuse sought to liberate us from the false consciousness of capitalism and believed that people like you threatened tolerance.
“Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.” (Marcuse, 1965)
Liberals would get good publicity. Conservatives would get bad publicity. Marcuse was part of a small group of academics who sought to silence the voice of the ordinary people. According to Marx, workers were supposed to rise against capitalism; however, workers in America were enjoying luxuries and wanted to maintain capitalism. So, instead of a revolution for the people, Marcuse initiated a revolution against the people, equating even moderate views with Fascism. Hateful radicals such as Angela Davis loved Marcuse’s mission. According to this mission, lying is justified if it supports the revolution. They see themselves as on the right side of history as they endlessly tell you that the Right is trying to hurt you. So now most liberals are so sure that the other side is bad that they disapprove of whatever the other side says when they don’t even know what the other side says.
A liberal teacher might claim they want to hear diverse opinions, but when a student says anything that is not liberal, the teacher closes the conversation. Liberal teachers tell students to stay away from family members if the family members are not liberal. Once, a student said that the teacher was acting like a cult leader. The teachers stopped the class to demand validation for their lived experience, then threw temper tantrums until everyone agreed. Liberal administrators allow this behavior. Normal people do not behave in this manner. Only people in the academic echo chamber act this way. Nothing prevents a group from turning into freaks if all they do is agree with each other, and these teachers seldom socialize with anyone outside the academic world. The closest these intellectuals come to interacting with people outside their own circle occurs when they lecture their Uber drivers.
Universities establish safe spaces to protect individuals from distressing language (Lukianoff, 2015). In these safe spaces, being offended is of great importance, alternative ideas become a threat, and words are seen as violence. Before you say we need laws to protect people from hate speech, consider how often you see hate speech coming from people who disagree with you. How often do you see it coming from people who agree with you? Only talking to those who think the same will make people unaware that someone could think differently and still be a good person.
“It is about a collection of professors that are so blinded by their advocacy, that they cannot fathom different viewpoints.” (Paros, 2017)
The fear of words turns into real trouble when the paranoid attacks imaginary threats, “By any means necessary.”
“Hundreds of Middlebury students disrupted the program, confronted and shouted down Murray, and pushed and shoved him in the hallway as he was leaving.” (Atkins, 2015)
Suppose you think inequality between races has a historical or cultural explanation. Then, you find a book full of reliable research supporting a different explanation that you consider repulsive. People from the echo chamber will attempt to eliminate the book, censor the author, and silence those who read it. Intolerant people tried to silence essential thinkers such as Richard Dawkins (Fortin, 2017), Jordan Peterson (Artuso, 2017), Christina Hoff Sommers (Anagnos, 2016), Charles Murray (Hallenbeck, 2017), Roger Scruton (Adams, 2015), and Edward O. Wilson (Fisher, 1994). You do not need to agree with these writers to learn from them. Astute students would like to hear from thinkers who offer challenging perspectives. Intolerant professors and their mindless students try to stop speakers by blowing horns and whistles. Dawkins said that the right to listen is denied.
Certain kids love to provoke trouble, and these kids will run straight to a parent to cry, often choosing the parent who will get mad at the other kid. These sadistic people discovered how to use authority to hurt other people. They need to make sure no one ever listens to the other person. Socialist professors teach these Joseph Stalin wannabes how to blame social problems on people who never did anything to them. The objective is to humiliate people and destroy confidence. Humanities professors enhance their reputations by encouraging students to engage in protest. The professors want to be the next Angela Davis. They do not care about the issue or the students. They need to control who gets heard for their game to work.
Section 3: The Two Minutes Hate
11
According to unreliable sources, there are people in North Korea who have never seen a world map. The government tells them what is out there. In the United States, the FBI warns social media companies about specific information (Golding, 2022). Withholding information is a tactic employed by malicious organizations to deceive and manipulate people. Good organizations let people see the map. We need open communication because when one side dominates the conversation, the side with control will become the morality police and persecute people. At one time, Christians controlled our culture and would burn heretics. Today, you will get fired from your job if you say something forbidden by people who want diversity and inclusiveness.
Who needs protection from words? A little disagreement is good for you. Working people are not fragile; many enjoy being challenged. Working people speak with the strength and confidence of Roseanne Barr and say words the politically correct want to forbid. Normal people are happy being that way. It is the way people should be. Conservatives are normal people who don’t want liberals forcing endless hysteria on society. Sometimes, they express this feeling in words that liberals do not like.
Some of you may be too young to remember when social media was relatively unregulated, allowing just about anything. You did not have to agree with anyone’s definition of gender. You could claim whatever political conspiracy you wanted. You could complain about any race. Those were the days when thoughtcrime did not exist. You could watch The Young Turks and then watch someone with an opposing opinion. Those days ended when progressives took control of social media, claimed the words caused harm, and restricted some ideas. Today, The Young Turks are allowed, while thousands of people from the opposing side have become increasingly difficult to find on the same platforms. Shadowy limitations prevent people from knowing when their posts are available. How many people were actually harmed by free speech? No one was harmed because if anyone did not like what someone said, they could listen to something else.
I asked the CNN viewer about people being restricted from social media. First, the viewer denied it had happened, then, in the next sentence, the viewer stated that restrictions were necessary to prevent Republicans from spreading misinformation, and then denied it had ever happened again. I was impressed by the doublethink. The viewer began discussing the need for consequences. The viewer wants to punish conservatives, who make up a large percentage of the people in society. That likely includes your Grandma and Grandpa. The viewer said that we cannot allow their voices to gain legitimacy. Liberals think they know more than conservatives and do not see those people as individuals who understand stuff. They think conservatives are just saying what others tell them to say. Then, after over ten years, when hundreds of conservatives had their channels closed, a single liberal talk show host was censored, and now the Democrats are calling censorship a threat to democracy. All people should be free to speak however they want. Even these hypocrites who tried to take freedom from others.
The news can convince people of a memory when it only tells half the story. Notice how CNN keeps saying “no evidence” when conservatives try to speak. When CNN says “no evidence,” a few years later, we learn there was evidence. Fake news has completely lost reality when they call Progressive rioters peaceful while looters burn down buildings. It’s all fun and games for rich kids. And the elite news media loves those kids. Journalists can stop the riots; they could tell you about good people being killed by the riots and in autonomous zones, but they remain silent when they think the killers are working for the greater good.
Sometimes, Socialists call themselves Anarchists. They are not Anarchists. They want their political system to control every thought and every step. A bunch of skinny Antifascists claim that attacking people will stop Nazis, but the people being attacked are ordinary people (Swenson, 2017). Anyone who equates Fascism with the activities of ordinary people will end up thinking Nazis are everywhere and everything traditional is Fascism. In reality, Fascism does not develop from the ways of ordinary people. Hegel’s progressive philosophy inspired Marxists and Fascists, who were mainly spoiled rich kids who wanted to control everyone. Mussolini and his friends were Marxists who one day decided to become nationalists instead of globalists. Not much of their politics changed. Even today, evil people plan on forcing everyone to be under a global centralized government that will control how we think.
“In parallel, societal pressure and rising activism will accelerate the pace at which companies embrace stakeholder value and will “force” the reluctant ones to convert to the cause.” (Schwab, 2022)
The chairman of the World Economic Forum wants to use activists to terrorize anyone who disagrees with the elite. When did attacking people for their beliefs become acceptable behavior? People have the right to say no to your politics. What do you plan on doing with the people who say no? Are you going to attack them forever? Who are you attacking, your parents, your children? Instead, consider the possibility that your beliefs are a bunch of lies. Activists do not see themselves as the cause of conflicts, so they continue to drive society crazy by blaming others. If your morals mainly claim that other people are dangerous, you are the danger.
People use rituals to reinforce beliefs. Rituals are how we lie to ourselves, and rituals keep lies alive. Social activists engage in rituals called demonstrations, where they gather and make noise. Popular media portrays demonstrations as heroic, even when Socialist protesters attack the police. Protesters will scream insults, throw bottles, and set fires as they try to provoke people. Then, when someone reacts, the Socialists will pretend to be victims. The Socialist rioters think destruction will force people to stop ignoring social problems. Instead, people see the rioters as a social problem. These protests have the opposite of the intended results when their opponents get free publicity. For example, Jordan Peterson would never have been as famous if the radicals had ignored the doctor. Meanwhile, the Fake News will claim that these acts of destruction are free speech and should be protected.
All the information on the Internet could have made people more knowledgeable. Instead, people only see what their group sees. Rhetoric from one side is called bold, and the other side’s rhetoric is called conspiracy, even when both sides are nonsense. Writers will use the harshest word when describing their opponents and the friendliest word when describing their side. They refer to their side as peaceful protesters and the other side as violent insurrectionists, even when both groups engage in similar activities. They ignore a hundred evil deeds by their side, then rant and rave when the other side does one bad act. Readers see through these illusions, though the writer will lose the ability to see the truth. This happens whenever a writer follows a word that ends with “ism.”
Also, someone needs to tell Antifa that attacking people is not going to stop Nazis. Hitler wrote about being assaulted by communists.
“We gained courage for a second meeting on a somewhat larger scale.” (Hitler, 1939 vol. 1 ch. 12)
Even Chomsky understood the danger.
“When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it’s the toughest and most brutal who win – and we know who that is.” (Chomsky, 2017)
Is Chomsky saying that you are just making your enemies stronger by attacking them, or is Chomsky saying that if you do not want to live in a hostile environment, don’t create one?
But even more important, what if the enemy you’re attacking isn’t really bad? What if you are starting trouble that does not need to be started? If you listen to the liberal news, you might get the impression that the right is full of violent monsters who want to hurt you. So, what do Patriotic people do when they get together for a political rally? Mostly, they sit in their lawn chairs and wave at people. They don’t look like monsters to me. They are working people, and the new media is full of elitists who detest white workers. The Leftist press will use famous sources for information, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center. Unfortunately, even groups with good reputations will publish articles written by biased elitists who do not practice rigorous research. If you ever see a report that says one side has lots of violence and the other side very little, check how they are getting their information. They might not count individuals that they feel do not represent their group, or they might only count certain crimes when the other side commits them. This will give the impression that one side is worse than it really is, and the other side is better than it really is. Primary News sources make money by repeating these faulty narratives. The truth is that most people on both sides are not trying to hurt anyone.
Section 4: Fine People on Both Sides
10
Progressive activists have supporters worldwide, and they could utilize their political influence to address some of the world’s most significant issues. The Uyghurs in China are facing a difficult situation. Still, liberal are not going to do anything about that, because the Chinese government does not allow progressive liberals to annoy people. In the United States, progressive activists are allowed to use their political influence to push all kinds of nonsense on ordinary people. A Google employee named James Damore wrote about intolerance for free thought at Google. The employees had to attend a diversity training program where people were told how to think.
“Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.” (Damor, 2017)
A radical political agenda infiltrating Google should concern all of us, as Google controls the information we receive. I wonder how much of an application’s output reflects the limited knowledge of the people who created the technology. If the designers are Marxists who love conflict, we should not be surprised if the output of their applications supports conflict.
Suppose a developer knew about the Left and the Right without knowing about the center. This developer then sets up a program to collect videos containing keywords associated with the politics of both the Left and the Right. The software would recommend Leftist videos if you watched videos from the Left, or Rightist videos if you watched videos from the Right. Such an App would never recommend videos with a balanced opinion. The program continually feeds the two conflicting poles, and you will end up with two sides that only hear their own opinions. I am sure the programs Google uses are far more advanced than this; however, even in real life, people often watch videos without hearing the other side’s opinion. Even educated people will call the other side ignorant without knowing anything about them.
Making people outraged attracts attention, and for journalists, attracting attention attracts money. So don’t be surprised if you see a story that makes you dislike someone you’ve never met. Perhaps the established new media favors the liberal point of view because Leftists provide endless complaints and drama for the fake news to report. An honest journalist, Tim Pool, noted how people beat each other in the streets after fake news made people outraged (Pool, 2018). Such outrage occurs when the news gives people incomplete information. We avoid becoming one of the outraged extremists by listening to alternative opinions.
The place where you work likely has a human resources department that aligns with progressive ideas of social justice. So now, a hardworking person can lose their job just because they said a word that ok to say last year. Welcome to the outrage culture. Society lives in fear of being targeted by a few fanatics who will dig into your past to find anything to use against you. Do not apologize to them because they will demand more. Authorities control all information when they control how people listen to each other. They want you to see people as problems.
Other people can see the same problems you do, though they might think your solutions will worsen the problem. Their methods might be better, and you will never know unless you listen. Try sending the other side a message and asking where they get their information. If you ask politely, people might answer. Never act like feminists on Tumblr, who equate all criticism with harassment and block comments from anyone who disagrees with them. Instead, treasure what the other side says, and let the other side be your teacher; the strengths of an argument show when compared to alternative views. People who have the facts on their side do not need to censor people. They can challenge wrong ideas by being honest and informed. A good idea was won even before it was invented.
Social activists will label the opposing side’s ideas as misinformation and demand that social media remove the content in question. You might not want social media giving your opponents a platform, but the other guy has as much of a right to speak as you. The others know a perspective you never felt, and whatever idea you find pleasant can be harmful in places you have never been. Everyone is wrong about something and also correct about other stuff. Even a bum yelling in a subway tunnel under Times Square can say something worth hearing. Even hate speech might help us understand the situation. Nietzsche, Malcolm X, Candace Owens, and even Jesus all said stuff other people did not want to hear, but they said what needed to be said. No one must agree with them to understand why their ideas are necessary.
We might never know what idea is right, but censoring is always wrong. Censorship creates a culture of lies and conflict. By not allowing people to share ideas, people have become afraid of each other. You might refuse to listen to the other side because you have been told the other side is immoral, but if people take one minute to listen to each other, they will realize everyone is confused. How we perceive social situations is often more a matter of imagination than fact, and no one person or group of people has all the facts. The confusion is why we need each other, and to learn from each other, we need to stop being intolerant of other people.
You might think that it would be safer to avoid the other person, and you want to err on the side of safety. You are limiting your world. What if the other guy is not trying to hurt you? Did you try to be friendly with the other guy, or did you assume the other guy was bad without even trying to talk to them? Most people are nice if you get to know them, and most people are friendly if they feel you understand them. Whatever flaws you see in the other, the other also sees in your side, and you could both be right. Look in a person’s eyes. If you choose to see anger, you will get angry. If you choose to see compassion, you will get compassion. If you choose to see friendship, you will get a friend.
When Zizek asked Peterson to name a single Postmodern NeoMarxist, Peterson fidgeted with a bottle cap and did not name any (Debate, 2019 1:47). Sometimes people invent villains and never check if such people exist. We become comfortable with our ignorance if we find ignorance useful. Peterson should have done better research. Zizek won the debate because the Hegelian was smarter and knew exactly what to ask. But wait a minute, isn’t Peterson on the side of Good? How could Evil win? Zizek showed Peterson that the two of them were not that different. The conflict between the two sides is caused by people assuming the other side is somehow different and bad. If you cannot say there are fine people on both sides, you are not one of the fine people.
Years ago, gamers asked for honesty in journalism. Feminists complained about the gamers because the feminists were narcissists who could not see the larger problem. The problem was that popular media was protecting lies with more lies. Without honest journalism, voters cannot make honest choices. Politicians who are nothing but empty husks get elected because the elitist news media invent fictional characters for these husks. We ended up with a world run by unelected bureaucrats who have given us endless wars, environmental programs that clean nothing, and social programs that make people dependent on the state. The situation might not improve when machines think for us. When I type “The Democrats misled people,” the program keeps trying to insert the word ‘allegedly.’ When I type “The Republican misled the people,” it does not try to insert ‘allegedly.’ Kind of like the program is trying to insert the intentions of the designers. Will the machines continue the narratives the humans started?
Section 5: CNN made itself Judge, Jury, and Prosecutor
11
“We are not extremists. The guys we burned at the stake were extremists.” (Q, 2020)
Patriots want to fight for the right to pursue happiness. Progressives have a different way of thinking. They want to impose consequences whenever something disrupts their sense of order. My liberal friends are entirely unaware of all the violence committed by the left that the news never reports. They think the right is more violent. So I ask them if they have ever seen a conservative attack a liberal in real life. They will accuse a conservative of being a threat for being present. The conservative did not actually do anything. Then I ask them if they have ever seen a leftist attack a conservative. They might say no at first. Then I will point out stuff we have seen. Some of the stuff is stuff they have done. They diagnose people, and if they can classify someone as part of a social problem, they see that person as evil. Then they think they need to harm that person. Most of the time, they do not even realize they are hurting people.
In 2020, a black man was having a fentanyl overdose. The police held the man down for nine minutes while people tried to tell the officers to stop (BBC News, 2020). This death angered people at a time when people were angry, so the Democratic Party spent the year attacking thousands of people in cities all around America, and the destruction was done with the approval of smirking politicians. I can not find accurate information on how many people the Democrats murdered. Not only are they not counting, but the Democrats have conveniently forgotten all about the people they killed, including the children. The leftist news seldom talks about the violence committed by Democrats. They seem to have forgotten that it ever happened. The Windshield wipers in the minds of journalists are definitely working.
Hegel claimed that reality is made real. Politicians have attempted to control the truth, especially those who lie a lot. You might say that the Deep State does not exist. Ok, but sneaky people do exist, and narcissists do exist, and sometimes they work together. They created a society where Journalists withhold the truth, social media cancels voices, diversity trainers tell you how to think, and those who hate America burn your business. Such sneaky organizations spend money on building more sneaky organizations. People would stop sending money to these organizations if they knew what they were doing. So they need to keep hiding the truth. Fake scholars and fake news will not tell the truth about themselves. The liberal News media will only interrupt and check conservatives, and they let liberals say whatever nonsense they want.
Marcuse sought to eliminate ideas before people had a chance to think of them. Do secretive organizations of influential people conspire to influence public perceptions by controlling the flow of information? I thought those were rumors invented by lonely minds. Then, Time Magazine wrote an article congratulating an organization that spent huge amounts of money managing the election (Ball, 2021). Communist journalists lied, communist judges blocked cases, and communists at the FBI suppressed information so a communist would be elected president. Even if you think what these guys did was good, we should never allow unelected people to have control. Leftists want a centralized government to protect elitist goals, and they equate democracy with elitist views. When they change procedures so their side wins, they do not call it stealing an election; they call it fortifying democracy.
“A Shadow Campaign is not democracy.” (Pool, 2024)
In the past, the doors of justice were closed to women and blacks. If one of them attempted to bring a case to court, it would be dismissed for failing to meet various legal requirements. Today, the doors of justice are supposed to be open to everyone. The Patriots disagreed with the way the election was being held and attempted to bring their grievances to court. However, instead of listening to them, the courts used terms such as ‘standing’ and ‘procedural demands.’ According to the liberal press, these are valid reasons not to listen to people, and Democrats congratulate themselves for preventing the patriots from getting a day in court, the same way Democrats in the past congratulated themselves for closing the doors of justice to blacks and women. But the silly deplorables were not content. People who resemble the American founding fathers feel the government no longer represents them. The Patriots decided to visit the Capitol in Washington.
The patriots felt that the election results could not be trusted, and the decision should be returned to the states. The Constitution might have initially allowed this option, before the Government was taken over by unelected bureaucrats who watch CNN. Under the bureaucratic way of thinking, the Patriots’ visit to the Capitol is called a threat to democracy and an attack against the Constitution. These CNN viewers ignore the fact that the guys who wrote the Constitution looked more like MAGA than ANTIFA. The Constitution was not written to protect a centralized government. It was written to protect the people from a centralized government. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people would never have allowed the judicial system to exclude citizens who love their country. The old Patriots would have understood what the new Patriots were doing. When the Patriots walked into the Capitol, they said, “America has returned.”
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” (Jefferson, 1787)
The Democrats frequently disrupt formalities in Washington, and the popular press almost always calls them heroes. The Liberal press calls it an insurrection when the Republicans do it that one time. The Patriots only stayed a short time and peacefully went home when they felt they had conveyed their message. There were over half a million Patriots; only a few dozen Patriots clashed with the police for a few seconds. That is not an insurrection. To make the Patriots seem evil, the press calls the visit deadly, even though the Patriots did not kill anyone. The Democrats count commonplace deaths, such as people who died from illness. Then the Democrats used their influence over the Justice system to put hundreds of people in solitary confinement for years (Keltz, 2021). Punishing the Patriots has become an obsession among liberal journalists, and the Democrats wanted to punish everyone who was at the demonstration, including harmless grandparents who stood in the visitor section. For years, the liberal press has been calling this visit worse than Perl Harbor. They won’t shut up about it.
The liberal press loves to point out violence at conservative events. But did the patriot commit violence that was anywhere near as bad as that of Democrats? The Patriots didn’t burn any cars or dumpsters, the way Democrats do. They didn’t smash any Korean stores, the way Democrats do. They didn’t threaten any businesses to support them, the way Democrats do. They didn’t throw bricks at drivers who were trying to go to work, the way Democrats do. They did not provoke or stalk the police, the way Democrats do. They did not stop and interrogate any jews, which is something that democrats have started doing. Most of all, the Patriots didn’t ‘Do the Right Thing’ for popular media to call them peaceful protesters without mentioning the hundreds of innocent people who liberals mercilessly beat into bloody messes. So now I know liberals who think that liberal violence does not exist.
After the Patriots’ visit, the News showed police officers crying on TV in something that looked like a serious courtroom. A few months before the Patriots visit, hundreds of cops were put in the hospital by Democrats (Bowden, 2020), and there was no broadcast full of tears for those cops. Democrats will be portrayed as victims by the news media after they attack the police, and the leftist attackers sometimes get money by winning court cases. The judges are leftist.
The Democrats were aware of the course the larger crowd would take, yet they chose not to provide the necessary security. Why? Usually, when conservatives have large public gatherings, ANTIFA will show up and start trouble. The Shadow Campaign told ANTIFA to stay away from the visit to the Capitol. Did the democrats not want to change the outcome? A common belief among Patriots is that the Democrats were trying to orchestrate violence. I am unsure what to believe, as the government is not being transparent and honest with the public. Should we trust people who recorded what they saw, or should we believe the News that tells a narrative that the Shadow Campaign invented before the event?
I’m not saying that I always agree with the Patriots’ policies. The policies on both sides could use some adjustments, which is why people who disagree come together and adjust policies. At least that is how a functioning government is supposed to be. The real threat to democracy is not a bunch of grandparents visiting the Capitol. You can’t have a functioning democracy when all the News, judges, politicians, and you do is try to hurt the other side. They dig through their opponent’s dirty laundry and impose massive penalties for minor infractions. However, the accusations do need to be true when a shadow government allows lies to put people in prison. Remember that the procedures you use against others can and will be used against people like you. This year, your side denies stealing the election. A few years from now, the other side might steal the election. Get ready for the day when you are called a threat to democracy and no one listens to you. The Democrats hit their opponents with cancel culture, lawfare, riots, assassinations, lies, and hate. Seriously, Democrats, do you really think you can endlessly throw junk at the other guy, and the other guy would never throw anything back, as if the power of arrogance will protect you forever? Some day, the Patriots are going to come back, and they will be less friendly the next time. It won’t be the grandparents who come back; It will be the grandchildren, and they will be armed with politicians and judges.
Section 6: A Better Government
11
Universities, journalism, and social media have all been successful in ensuring that popular media only express a point of view that favors liberal ideas. When was the last time you saw a TV series that was not liberal? Popular comedy once made fun of both conservative and liberal politicians. Seems like popular comedy only makes fun of conservatives, and they give endless compliments to liberals. And most of the time, the jokes and the compliments seem to have been written by people who don’t know or care if the portrayals are correct. SouthPark made no episodes making fun of Biden or Kamala. Of course, SouthPark is not obligated to make jokes about anyone. Well, jokes about politicians are also about the people who support those politicians, and cowards don’t make comedy about themselves.
Liberals do not want to see what they have become. They have become sadistic. There was a song by the band Rage Against the Machine that said something about not doing what they tell you. Eventually, the edgy boy fans of this band got older and less edgy. Then COVID came along, and scared old fans changed their tune to “Shut up and do what we tell you.” Well, the MAGA deplorables refused to do what they told them. So now the liberals are angry. The other day, one of the patriots was released from prison. This made a group of liberal Democrats very sad. Then they learn that the Patriot was pulled over by the police and shot dead. The news of this man’s death made the Democrats extremely happy. Usually, I don’t care about other people’s moral faults, but these Democrats are slaves of the state who enjoy seeing their master hurt those who had the courage to break the rules. I find these Democrats morally repugnant, lesser men who are afraid to be free individuals. They remind me of Oompa Loompas who sing and dance for their master.
So how did these lesser men ever get so much political influence? Organizations such as the Department of Justice are made of these kinds of men, and they think the Constitution authorizes them to rule over you. About a century ago, the president may have authorized some clerks; however, the bureaucrats have given themselves more authority than the Constitution grants to anyone. The Department of Justice became an unelected government that protects the government from people like you. They can say whatever they want, which is then broadcast on all networks. Without counterarguments, investigatory committees use their interpretations to demand more investigations. After limiting information, those in control have convinced themselves that the general public is a threat to the government. Now, they surround the Capitol with fences and troops to keep the public out of a place where the public belongs.
The FBI is not a real police force that protects a community. It is a crypto police force set up by politicians. The FBI built phony cases so the Democrats could throw politically appointed judges at their opponents, and some of their opponents were fined billions of dollars and given prison sentences of up to forty years for crimes that did not exist. We now have a secretive government that does not engage in dialogue with people with whom it disagrees. These clerks all have one thing in common: they believe what they hear on CNN. The Communist News Network picks the candidates for the democratic party.
I am an anarchist, and I would rather have no government. Still, we are not going to be able to get rid of the Government anything soon, so we might as well try to make the best government that we can. I heard that in the old days, politicians from different parties would socialize with one another. Their children attended the same schools. They ate at the same restaurants. Their families attended the same social event. Now, parties act like gangs that perpetually use lawfare against each other. Both sides are now using cancel culture to silence the other side. For democracy to function effectively, we require an ongoing dialogue between representatives and between the people and their representatives. People need to be able to talk however they want, and representatives need to be able to listen.
The most powerful tool is the right to vote, because politicians will listen to us if enough of us exercise it. The National Rifle Association gets its way because its members are the kind of citizens who vote. The Occupy Wall Street movement accomplished nothing because they didn’t vote. Utilize democracy to create a high-quality life; to do so, start voting.
We should be voting for Politicians who can communicate effectively with each other. In other words, no squads would be allowed. This will not happen if legislators spend time talking to organizations instead of individuals. Representatives should be forbidden from taking money from organizations. `They should sleep together in bunk beds, eat in a cafeteria, dress the same as workers, and everything they do must be public information. Making sure that everything that the government does is public information is what we should have done after World War II. Because in a democracy, the public is supposed to be aware of what the public servants are doing.
Downsize all branches of government. Too much authority allows those in power to interfere with us in ways that are none of the government’s business. We will have less government, which would enable people to take control of their lives. Each branch should be considered an optional business, and people have the right to opt out of any business, as no one should ever be forced to accept a service they do not want. Therefore, politicians, police, prosecutors, and judges have limited authority over people and should only act as advisors.
Remember that new technology and new economic frameworks are giving institutions more control over our lives. Someday, businesses will be able to monitor every minute of our lives. Imagine what the police would do if they could see everything you do. Everything in your record can and will be used against you, especially by agencies that feed on the misinterpretation of information. The harmless things people do every day will get them arrested. Do you want to live in a paranoid culture of fear and mistrust with police dressed in military armor, looking like Darth Vader, watching every move we make? We need to stop building institutions that collect and use personal information. Private information, such as medical records and daily activities, should only be disclosed when the individual chooses to share the information. Go down to your local government office to tell them to delete all records about you immediately. Tell them they don’t own you. They will not respect your wishes. Go to Google and try telling them that they don’t own you. We need a government that gives influence to the people instead of institutions. We need a government that supports our request.
Also, when did Insurrection become bad? Last time the Patriots had an insurrection, they wrote the Constitution. I propose that we continue the work of the original Patriots and start downsizing our government. Will returning power to the people really create a better government? I don’t know. Sometimes, a Constitutional republic is necessary to prevent a democracy from turning into a tyranny of the masses, so people who understand government better than I do will need to work out the details. The representatives who understand government the best are those who listen to the people. I disagree with liberals because I think they want to expand government, and they lie a lot. However, please do not assume that I support the conservatives. I do not want any form of civilization. Returning control to the people is just one step in downsizing civilization, which will take more steps.
Hey liberals, even if the Patriots were completely wrong about everything, which they probably were, but they had one demonstration after you burned cities and murdered people. Liberals like to portray themselves as being smarter than everyone else. All that brain power is used to flatter yourself. So instead of spending years acting like everything is wrong when they do it, tell yourself that they have just as much right to their opinions as you. You think the problem is them. It is not them. It has been you all along. All you need to do is learn to share this country with them, and the cultural war will come to an end.
Next Page Chapter 16
Sources
Adams, Tim. “Roger Scruton.” The Guardian, 4 October 2015.
Anagnos, Chloe. “TRIGGERING! – Political Correctness Gone Too Far at UMass Amherst.” Liberator Online, 5 May 2016.
Artuso, Antonella. “Protesters crash controversial U of T prof’s appearance.” Toronto Sun, 17 March 2017.
Atkins, Larry. “There Should Be Free Speech On College Campuses For Conservative Students, Conservative Speakers And Liberal Professors.” HuffPost, 28 October 2017.
Ball, Molly. “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election.” Time Magazine, 4 February 2021.
BBC News. “George Floyd: What happened in the final moments of his life.” BBC News, 15 July 2020.
Bowden, Ebony. “More than 700 officers injured in George Floyd protests across US.” The New York Post, 8 June 2020.
Crabb, Annabel. “The Red Pill ban: an absurdity only online activism could create.” The Sydney Morning Herald, 22 April 2017.
Damor, James. Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber. Google internal memo, July 2017.
Debate. Peterson, Žižek. Sony Centre in Toronto, 19 April 2019.
Dewey, Caitlin. “The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read.” The Washington Post, 13 October 2014.
Dickson, Caitlin. “Richard Dawkins Gets into a Comments War with Feminists.” The Atlantic, 6 July 2011.
Do the Right Thing. Director Spike Lee. Universal Pictures, 1989. film.
Eisenhower, Dwight. “Eisenhower’s Farewell Speech.” 17 January 1961.
Fisher, Helen. “‘Wilson,’ They Said, ‘Your All Wet!'” New York Times, 16 October 1994.
Fortin, Jacey. “Richard Dawkins Event Canceled Over Past Comments About Islam.” New York Times, 24 July 2017.
Full Metal Jacket. Director Stanley Kubrick. Warner Bros, 1987. film.
Golding, Bruce. “Zuckerberg says Facebook censored The Post’s Hunter Biden stories because FBI warned of Russian misinfo ‘dump'” New York Post, 36 August 2022.
Hallenbeck, Brent. “Protesters created ‘violent incident’ at Middlebury.” Burlington Free Press, 3 March 2017.
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf, 1925. Translated by James Murphy. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939.
Holy Bible. King James Version. Oxford, 1769.
Jefferson, Thomas. “Letter to William Stephens Smith.” 13 November 1787.
Keltz, David. “Capitol Injustice: January 6 Rioters Held in Solitary Confinement.” The American Spectator, 14 May 2021.
Lukianoff, Greg, and Jonathan Haidt. “The coddling of the American mind.” The Atlantic (Sep 2015) pp. 09-15.
Marcuse, Herbert. Repressive tolerance. Berkeley Commune, 1968.
Musk, Elon. DealBook Summit Interview. New York Times, 30 November 2023.
Nelson, Steven. “Noam Chomsky: Antifa is a ‘major gift to the Right.” The Washington Examiner, 27 August. 2017.
Ngo, Andy. “More than two dozen Antifa rioters charged for Portland mayhem.” New York Post, 6 June 2021.
Paros, Mike. “To the Evergreen staff and faculty.” 1 June 2017.
Plato. Complete Works. Edited by John M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997.
Pool, Tim. “False Accusations Got Innocent People Attacked in Oakland.” YouTube video, 25 July 2018.
Pool, Tim. “Obama CIA Engaged In SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY Against Trump, New Report Reveals, This Was A COUP ATTEMPT.” YouTube video, 14 February 2024.
Russell, Bertrand. Portraits from Memory. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1956.
Schwab, Klaus. The Great Narrative. Geneva: Forum Publishing, 2022.
Swenson, Kyle. “Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley.” Washington Post, 28 August 2017.