We are not extremists. The guys we burnt at the stake were extremists. – Q Cheney (2021)
Section 1: Understanding
8
Instead of understanding, people will waste time with unnecessary disagreements. A cultural war began in July 2011. Before that month atheists would get together to talk and were happy, enjoying the wit and humor of Richard Dawkins, encouraging people with different points of view to speak. Then, one day, a feminist showed up and claimed the meetings needed to be safer for Female people. 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 the mainstream culture after Dawkins’s supporters called their opponents “social justice warriors.” Different groups adopted this term and used it to describe overly zealous progressives. A liberal college at Berkeley prevented Dawkins from speaking at their facility. People came forward and said that colleges should allow everyone to talk. Elitists hate when common people step out of line. The students began to beat people who wanted free speech. A sneaky communist social media club called Antifa launched organized riots (Ngo, 2021). 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 ignore the times 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. The people in a groupthink argue against what they believe the other side to be, and they seldom see their opponent as a respectable person with legitimate concerns. The cultural divide has spread until news broadcasts spend every day complaining about the other 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 they give the message that not prosecuting a person is tyranny and democracy will fail if they do not punish an opponent. Then, these liberals pretend to be the compassionate ones.
I try to value good ideas wherever they can be found, and the purpose of this book is not to amplify the cultural war. I want to stop the conflict by understanding it. Therefore, we should build our temple out of good information. We do not want to become so set in our ways that we stop seeing the truth, like the professor who only sees their own arrogance, like the preacher who only sees wishful thinking, and the guy who can’t say anything good about other people. Understanding will be the foundation of our temple, and this understanding does not just consist of making up stories about the other guy. You need to understand yourself because most of those stories are actually about yourself. Even notice how often people do stuff that they accuse the other guy of doing. Kind of like the cultural war is a mirror. A mirror we should be looking at. I believe people want to do good. They don’t realize their limitations.
Ibrim Kendi wants the government to end bad practices in capitalism (Kendi, 2019). Supposedly, equity could happen when a committee decides who gets 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 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 it goes bad, nothing can 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 manipulate the world secretly. President Eisenhower warned us about an industrial complex run by a few (Eisenhower, 1961). My father was one of those bureaucrats who worked for military intelligence, so 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? Well, not one of them could figure out how to change the clock on their videocassette recorder. You could go to their house, and the VCR would be flashing 12:00. Now, you might say that those petty bureaucrats were just the worker bees. And you might assume there must have been a mind above them who knew what it was doing. I never saw that mind.
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 controls 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. When I grew up in Brazil, I noticed how cruel rich people could be to their servants. The problem is not white privilege. Most of the servants were white, and liberal blacks were among the cruelest and most stickup masters. The cruel people did not see themselves as cruel. They admire themselves as virtuous, compassionate leaders.
Section 2: Communication
11
Business schools teach the 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 academy to invent words that support this agreement. Minds become part of a repetitive loop, and people lose the ability to think outside the loop. Unfortunately, our news reporters and politicians are part of this insane establishment, and they help the academy divide society.
A media critic made a few videos about sexism in video games. The videos were mostly harmless commentary from a feminist point of view. 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 gave the feminist point of view. It does not include the gamer’s point of view. 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). Other groups would have apologized to the feminists, but the gamers refused to bend the knee.
That was when I realized that 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 talk to the gamers shows that most major new services no longer practice investigative journalism. I do not know who is writing the articles for major new papers. 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 group on the internet has people who send aggressive messages. One side will accuse the other side of sending abusive messages while failing to notice all the insults their side throws at the other side. 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 greatest threat since the black death, no one was harmed. Feminists even went running for their lives as no one pursued them. No one was ever after them.
You might notice that the Leftist’s news seldom says the names of the gamers. An anonymous opponent is easy to lie about. If you are interested in learning what the gamers were saying in their own words, look up the social commentator Carl Benjamin, who was also called Sargon. Sometimes, Sargon is a jerk. Sometimes, Sargon is brilliant. The Gamers were part of a larger movement of people who felt that leftists were taking the entertainment out of entertainment.
You might not care if feminists disrespected gamers online. Unfortunately, the insanity of the internet is also happening in real life. The same cultural divide can be found in our schools. 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 does not know that Marxists have been working on the division long before the hat came along. Back in the sixties, the skillful intellectual Herbert Marcuse wanted to save us from the false consciousness of capitalism and decided 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 wanted to silence the voice of the common people because the workers were enjoying capitalism’s luxury and not becoming revolutionaries. So, instead of a revolution for the people, Marcuse started a revolution against the people, where even moderate views were equated with fascism. Hateful academics such as Angela Davis loved Marcuse’s mission.
My teachers claim they want to hear diverse opinions, but when a student says anything that is not liberal, the teacher closes the conversation. I’ve seen teachers tell students to stay away from family members if the family members are not liberal. One time, a student thought the teacher was acting like a cultist. 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 act this way. 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 academia. The closest these intellectuals get to outside people happens when they lecture their Uber drivers.
Universities set up safe spaces to protect people from upsetting words (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. A few people will try to eliminate the book, censor the author, and silence people who read the book. Intolerant people tried to silence important 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. Lots of people would like to hear thinkers who offer challenging perspectives. Intolerant professors and their students try to stop speakers by blowing horns and whistles. Dawkins said that the right to listen is denied.
I used to think people fear free thought when their claims do not stand up to scrutiny, but that is not the only reason the fearful try to stamp other people’s speech. Certain kids love to provoke trouble, and these kids will run straight to a parent to cry and always choose 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.
Section 3: 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 tells social media to be on guard about something when they don’t want something to be said (Golding, 2022). Withholding information is how evil organizations insult 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 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 like to be 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 are too young to remember when social media allowed 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. If you do not like what someone says, you can listen to something else. Those were the days when thoughtcrime did not exist. You could watch The Young Turks and then watch someone with an opposing opinion. Progressives took control of social media, claimed the words caused harm, and restricted some ideas. How many people were actually harmed by free speech? No one was harmed. Today, The Young Turks are allowed, while thousands of people from the other side have become hard to find on the same platforms. Shadowy limitations prevent people from knowing when their posts are available.
I asked the CNN viewer about people being restricted from social media. First, the viewer denied it happened, then in the next sentence, the viewer said that restrictions were necessary to keep Republicans from spreading misinformation, and then denied it ever happened again. I was impressed by the doublethink. The viewer started talking about how there should be 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. Nothing you say will change the liberal mind. The windshield wipers in the liberal’s mind never stop running.
The news can convince people of a memory when they only tell half a 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 elitest 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 to force society to submit to socialist rules. A bunch of skinny Antifascists claim attacking people will stop Nazis, but the people being attacked are ordinary people (Swenson, 2017). Anyone who equates Fascism with the activities of common people will end up thinking Nazis are everywhere. In reality, fascism does not develop from the ways of common people. Hegel’s progressive philosophy inspired Marxists and Fascists, who were mostly spoiled rich kids who wanted to control everyone. Mussolini and his friends were Marxists who one day changed the name of their group. 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)
This chairman of The World Economic Forum wants to use activists to terrorize anyone who disagrees with the elite. When did attacking people for 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 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 do rituals called demonstrations where they get together and make noise. Popular media portrays demonstrations as heroic, even when protesters fight with police to feel special. 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.
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 call their side peaceful protesters and the other side violent insurrectionists, even when both sides are doing 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 fascists is not going to stop Nazis. Hitler wrote about the struggle with communists who would attack Nazis.
“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)
Most people have no idea what the word Fascism means and use it to refer to any political idea they think is bad. I have seen liberals who think libertarians are fascists and libertarians who think liberals are fascists. Communists think everyone is a fascist. The word originally meant 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. Before blaming someone else, consider if you are starting trouble. If you do not want to live in a hostile environment, don’t create one.
Though this book will talk about breaking from civilized rules, it was not written for urban rioters. Humanities professors advance their reputations by encouraging students to protest. They want to be the next Angela Davis. They do not care about the issue or the students. People with inner strengths do not need to burn a business someone else worked hard to build. People with inner strengths do not need to threaten others. We stand on our own feet and do not bend the knee.
Section 4: The Internet
10
Progressive activists have supporters worldwide, but instead of using their influence to stop the Chinese government from forcing education on Uygars, activists seem more interested in requiring education on us. 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 infecting Google should concern all of us since Google controls the information we get. I wonder how much of the output of an application reflects the limited knowledge of the people who made 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 chooses keywords of either left or right politics and sets up a program to collect videos with these keywords. The software would recommend leftist videos if you watched left videos or rightist videos if you watched right videos. The App would never recommend middle opinions videos. You will end up with two sides who only hear their sides’ opinions, and the program keeps feeding the two conflicting poles repeatedly. I am sure the programs Google uses are way more advanced than this.
Most Journalists say what their company wants them to say, and the stories they tell are not always true. Making people outraged attracts attention, and attracting attention attracts money. So don’t be surprised if you see a story that makes you dislike someone you 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.
Academics have spent the last fifty years inventing new reasons to get outraged at people. The place you work probably has a human resource department that conforms to academic ideas of social justice, and they will investigate anyone who has become the target of outrage. 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 ask 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 won even before it was invented.
Social activists will call the other side’s ideas misinformation and demand social media remove the accused. You might not want social media giving your opponents a platform, but the other guy has as much 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 see social situations is more imagination than fact, and no one person or group of people has all the facts. The confusion is why we need each other.
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 Hegalian 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.
Section 5: Fine people on both sides
10
Both Christians and Muslims will punish people who disagree with them. How could such a rude tradition remain so successful? I saw how on a crowded train where all the seats were taken. A man acting strange walked on the train. Other passengers were afraid and got up to let the spooky person have a seat. Religions spread when we let unhinged people get their way, and we allow small intolerant groups to manipulate society. 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.
All politicians lie; however, the news media has adopted the habit of only checking the information of politicians that they disagree with. Nearly all news channels are liberal. This means they only interrupt conservatives, and they let liberals say whatever nonsense they want. This media bias is annoying. Suppose you make an effort to clean your house. Then, liberals who do not clean their houses keep pointing out minor flaws in your home. They point out the same minor flaws over and over again year after year. Some of these flaws were fixed a long time ago, but they still won’t shut up. Meanwhile, their houses are falling apart. Then they want you to pay to fix their houses because they say everything is your fault.
If you go to a leftist rally, they are smashing windows, burning cars, and fighting with the police. The elitist news media seldom talks about this real violence committed by the left. Instead, the media endlessly talks about imaginary violence by the right. They call it a threat to the Constitution. 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. Do you know what happened the first time patriotic people had an insurrection? They wrote the Constitution. My professors and their fake news want a centralist government to protect elitist goals, and they equate democracy with elitist views. The Constitution was not written to protect a centralist government. It was written to protect the people from a centralist government. The Constitution says We The People.
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 looking at these historical facts, Christians like to talk about how Jesus improved their lives, claiming this change is evidence of God. The follower of Mohammed, Buddha, and Krishna also claim their ways improve lives. Ever met a Christian who equates every good feeling with Jesus? Are these feelings are junk? Would we be better off doing something useful? 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 silly activities. Perhaps the balanced tribes avoided the unhinged tribes until the crazy people took over the world, and we inherited the sickness.
In the story of Genesis, people lost the Garden of Eden after eating from the Tree of Knowledge (Genesis 3). The knowledge we got was not exactly good and evil; no one completely knows good or evil. We only realized the possibility of good and evil. In the story, we gained the ability to make moral judgments. This chapter mixes politics, religion, ritual, and what we consider right or wrong because they all have the potential to destroy justice. Both Political and religious organizations have people who want to impose their moral judgments over the rest of society. We need to stop being so intolerant of other people. If you cannot say there are fine people on both sides, you are not one of the fine people.
Marcuse wanted to eliminate ideas before people thought of the idea. 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, Times Magazine wrote an article congratulating an organization that spent huge amounts of money to manage the election (Ball, 2021). Even if you think what these guys did was good, we should never allow unelected people to have control. Sneaky people create 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. 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)
Progressives think they have the right to dish out consequences. They even started protesting at the homes of judges. All this is done with the approval of smirking politicians. The courts are supposed to be places where people can air grievances, but if Judges become afraid and avoid taking cases that anger leftists, patriots will not get a chance to show their arguments. Meanwhile, tyrants can set up something that looks like a court to say whatever they want, which gets broadcast on all networks. Without counterarguments, investigatory committees use their interpretations to demand more investigations.
After limiting information, the people in control have convinced themselves that the general public is trying to hurt people. So now they surround the capital with fences and troops to keep the public out of the place where the public belongs. Meanwhile, the FBI and Department of Justice protect leftist politicians and prosecute anyone they see as a problem. Hundreds of patriots have been placed in solitary confinement (Keltz, 2021). The FBI is not a real police force that protects a community. It is a crypto police force set up by politicians. The Department of Justice has become a renegade government.
Notice how the liberal press will call a conservative protest a threat to democracy, even though liberals have protests way more often than conservatives. The real threat to democracy is not a bunch of grandparents visiting the capital for a few hours. Those grandparents went home when they were done. The real threat to democracy uses the government to prosecute those grandparents for years and years. If you ever find yourself agreeing with locking people away, do you want to live in a country where people fear the government? Remember, procedures you use against the other guy can and will be used against people like you. Tyrants have a habit of targeting their supporters. Get ready for the day when you are called a threat to democracy and no one listens to you. Perhaps then you will realize that no one needs to be persecuted by you.
The situation might not get better when machines think for us. In the near future, Factcheck programs will highlight any statement that might not be true, but what if crazies control those programs? We will not know right and wrong when the Tree of Knowledge is forbidden. And what if there is no bigger God to fight the new God? In our huge universe, your particular point of view seems small. No God listens to your prayers. No one cares. No guiding light or supernatural purpose exists in the world. Fortunately, people do fine without those fairy tales; we need the courage to hold on to our seats and protect them from the crazies. I make fun of people’s beliefs; however, we should take a few beliefs seriously, particularly those that protect our rights. We all have rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights emerged from our human needs. We do not need to say these rights exist on a transcendental plane because we make them exist, and they will always exist, even when governments try to take them away.
We are living in the early stages of the information age. Our cultural wars are the beginning of more significant conflicts. Thousands of years from now, cyberarcheologists will investigate the mistakes we made. You might think future minds will support your argument, but we do not know how they will see us. What we consider our best ideas could lead to disasters that we do not know about yet.
Section 6: Aufheben
11
In a Maoist society, they want you to denounce your family and friends for saying the wrong words. You live in fear of your thoughts as you pretend to be one of them. In the revolution, the individual object does not exist. Only the revolution exists, and a subject has an identity when the identity supports the revolution. You must speak the language of the revolution, or you deny the existence of the subject’s identity, so everyone must spend their lives complaining about other people and lying about themselves. The revolutionary’s true identity only allows love for progress itself. For them, progress is love, but their Ministry of Love does not love. Progress destroys and uses. The new ways replace the old ways, and the new ways become our cage. Hegel called this process Aufheben. Most of the time, you do not know what you destroy, you do not know what will be, and you also do not know what the process is making you do.
In a neighborhood where people lived in nice houses and had lots of education, there was a beverage shop where people were reading on their laptops. It seemed like a nice place, so I ordered one of their fruity drinks. A group of locals was complaining about a book by a Canadian. These people do not think an idea can be true, the way God intended. Instead, they judge everything according to how it fits their idea of privilege. In their worldview, the book is epistemic violence against people who are not white. The people making this claim were all white. They also managed to take all the flavor out of a fruit drink. Some of you might agree with them. I do not know which side is right because social awareness and paranoid delusions are hard to tell apart. They were screaming at the guy who was reading the Canadian’s book. The book was full of advice. Some advice is junk, but it is not bad enough to scream about.
By reading books alone, I can explore our culture with no one telling me what is right. With guidance, my worldview would have been closer to the politically correct narrative. Instead, I developed this silly narrative where people read different opinions before jumping to conclusions. The Canadian tells you to get yourself in order, which is better than living in resentment. Spending your whole life angry at others is easy if you live in a nice neighborhood where others pick up your mess; however, it is not a useful way to think if you are poor and need to make something out of yourself. Revolutionaries make people angry at each other, and they call it knowledge.
“To bring political knowledge to the workers the Social Democrats must go among all classes of the population; they must dispatch units of their army in all directions.” (Lenin, 1902)
When extremists move into an organization, they tell everyone stuff that half the people agree with. They then start accusing others of causing conflict. Once enough people are excluded from the organization, people become afraid to disagree. People bend their knees. The extremists then use the organization to teach people to spread the idea. Movements such as feminism and environmentalism started with good ideas until a few people adopted Marxist propaganda. Now, the political left controls every form of popular entertainment, which has become the enemy of the people when it makes us feel that our neighbors are bad. They tell us that those bad people have too much privilege.
School teachers are among the first to join extremist political organizations, and they think they have the right to indoctrinate society. Paulo Freire planned to use education to turn kids into agents of social change (Giroux, 2010), and Freire’s Marxist schemes are coming true. During the COVID lockdowns, kids stayed home and joined their classes through computers. Parents could hear the teachers, and in every class, the word racism was repeated dozens of times. The parents could see the teachers steering the conversation into discussing social issues. The parents could see that the teachers were pushing political beliefs. Most parents knew little about the educational colleges that train school managers. At those schools, Marxists have spent decades colluding to modify the education of your kids. They want schools to use Paulo Freire’s techniques of passively suggesting ideas to kids.
“Not only must instruction hold high expectations for students, it must also support students’ cultural identities and afford opportunities for students to critique inequities.” (Ladson-Billings, 1995)
In other words, the kids are taught to feel morally superior by condemning people around them. Parents do not want emotionally insecure teachers to shame kids, parents do not want their kids to be trained to look for cultural failure, parents want their kids to know opportunities exist, and parents do not want political extremists to teach kids to see parents as the problem.
In The Republic, Plato portrayed a society where kids were not raised by their families. Instead, kids were owned by the collective, and kids were trained to be tools of the collective. Even today, education experts think they know how to raise kids better than parents. I assume their data was compiled at educational colleges from questionnaires. Surveys are not reliable research when people with an agenda design the questions. Educational experts must be told that using kids to fight their political battles is wrong. They should be teaching kids about subjects, not turning kids into subjects.
Experts in social criticism selected certain groups and called them marginalized. The social issues of marginalized people make the revolution seem necessary. Most marginalized people do not ask to be used as tools for the revolution, and they do not want progressive teachers calling their kids disadvantaged. Most people think they have as much potential as anyone else. Still, academics do not care what people want, so they invent various hypotheses about why people get marginalized. They see problems in institutions, and you can get accused of being part of the problem if you doubt their views.
In the old days, liberals fought for equal rights because they wanted a world where people lived together, and those liberals helped bring about improvements. However, way too many liberals want diversity in your business while they lack inclusion in their own office. These snobs excluded black women from the liberal discourse. Black women such as Bell Hooks had the courage to talk about the problem, and Kimberle Crenshaw showed how people can be discriminated against in multiple ways. She was right, but is this understanding of discrimination a virtue that will improve society? No, it is not because intersectionality finds multiple ways to see evil in people who are not evil, and people who are not virtuous adopt this viewpoint. Intersectional feminism has become the weapon of choice that useless rich white people use to pretend to have a purpose while doing nothing useful. Those liberal snobs now call themselves Internationalists.
“… identity-based politics has been a source of strength, community, and intellectual development.” (Crenshaw, 1991)
When people want to see social problems, they look for problems and encourage others to see the same problems. Derrick Bell invented fictional stories that portray white people as evil (Bell, 1992). We do not need schools to encourage this kind of judgment. Every group of people has some good people and some bad people. There is no evil race. There are individuals and situations. Some situations are similar enough that we can put them in categories and deal with the categories, but people do not fit into categories. Inside, everyone is different, yet also, inside, everyone is the same. Constantly equating yourself with a race will limit your view of what you are capable of being. You will also lose the ability to see what other groups of people are capable of being.
There is nothing wrong with a white guy saying, “It is okay to be white.” Any group of people can make the same claim because every group has the right to praise themselves, and you do not need to hate anyone to have pride. Groups with pride can work with other groups with pride. Ignoring one group’s accomplishments ignores all people’s achievements because multiple groups contributed. We have always been a team. People can work together to build society. Weirdos from Educational colleges want to teach the students to love conflict. We need to get rid of these weirdos. Parents should control the school administration.
We do not want our schools to be used to create change agents because change agents do not contribute to society. They attack society and create more change agents. Do not change yourself for those annoying intersectional goblins. You will know political extremists have infected your group when you no longer talk to people you used to talk with. That is when you need to stand up and say, “Let us return to what we originally planned to do.”
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.
Bell, Derrick. Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism. New York: Basic Books, 1992.
Crabb, Annabel. “The Red Pill ban: an absurdity only online activism could create.” The Sydney Morning Herald, 22 April 2017.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (1991): 1241–1299.
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.
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.
Freire, Paulo. The Politics of Education: Culture, Power and Liberation. Translated by Donaldo Macedo. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey, 1985.
Full Metal Jacket. Director Stanley Kubrick. Warner Bros, 1987. film
Giroux, Henry. “Lessons to Be Learned From Paulo Freire as Education Is Being Taken Over by the Mega Rich,” Truthout, 23 November 2010.
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.
Keltz, David. “Capitol Injustice: January 6 Rioters Held in Solitary Confinement.” The American Spectator, 14 May 2021.
Ladson-Billings, Gloria. “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 32, no. 3, 1995, pp. 465–491.
Lenin, Vladimir. “What Is to Be Done?, 1902”. Translated by Joe Fineberg and George Hanna. Marxists Internet Archive, 1999.
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.
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.