Reactions to Yesterday’s Post (A Red-Pilled America)

Yesterday’s post got a lot of new eyes because it got linked on several external sites.  Four of these folks left comments.  I’ve copied those comments below:

  • I enjoy your well written posts. Just for my education, you mentioned “FBI sponsored inner city crime”. Could you elaborate? Thanks.
  • I’ve said it before, and it is worth repeating: The salvation of the American people rests with the states and the state governments. Only these entities can protect and defend the people from the predators in DC. Only the states can marshal the resources necessary to prevent the federal government goons from harassing and harming citizens. Just as state governments have refused to cooperate with federal goons on various issues, it is time for states to utterly nullify the federal government. By no longer allowing collection of federal taxes within their jurisdictions, and also not allowing agents of the DC to operate within their borders, Americans can be freed of the criminality inflicted upon them by the unaccountable criminals at the US Capitol. It is time to take Federalism to the next level. A convention of states could, in a single day, invalidate the entire swamp and begin a new era of freedom and government accountability in this once great nation.
  • I think tribunals, and executions, will go a LOOONNNNNGGGGGGGG way to healing this country. The “great experiment” (i.e. the black man, women’s “rights”) is an ABJECT FAILURE!!!  We HAVE to move forward Or NO ONE DOES, and of course, NO ONE LIVES.
  • And you honestly think the R’s are the genuine answer?  You are a bigger fool and bigger part of the problem than originally calculated.

Well, I think this represents an interesting cross-section of people on the Right.  The first commentor didn’t explicitly provide his position on the topic I was discussing but he definitely read my words and had a specific question about one of my statements.  He also said polite things about my writing (which is always greatly appreciated) so I assume that we are at least not too far apart on basic beliefs on the American political situation (at least that could be the case).

The second and third commentors wanted to address specific actions that they hope some groups will take to force changes in the political situation.  These are actions that will not occur under the current political framework but would require some kind of rupture of the political structure, either through a civil war or a loosening of the federal arrangement that might involve some kind of implicit or explicit nullification of federal laws that are deemed harmful by various states.

The fourth commentor is especially interesting.  And not only because he recognized that I am, “a bigger fool and bigger part of the problem than originally calculated.”  He also seems to have gotten the impression that I think the Republicans are somehow the “genuine answer” to our problems.  What I find interesting is that not only didn’t I say or imply that the Republicans were part of any solution, but my post never mentioned the Republicans at all.  What this tells me is that many of us are already locked into points of view and ways of looking at things that almost preclude hearing what people with other points of view have to say.

And I see this in my own discussions with others.  I already have a narrative about what’s going on.  If someone has a different way of looking at things, often I attribute this different point of view to a lack of understanding or ignorance of the facts.  We develop tunnel vision to simplify the playing field.  We’re tuned into a few general indicators.  Maybe they’re key phrases or buzzwords that we use to size up whether someone is on “our side” or not.  And from these we extrapolate everything else about that person.  But the conversations between people even on the “same side” aren’t very helpful.

I’ve been of the opinion that people on the right have become more extreme because they’ve been shut out of the conversation by gatekeepers at places like National Review and the Weekly Standard (when it still existed).  Being silenced by the mainstream of your own side tends to radicalize those who are excluded.  And by the same token excluding dissident voices will weaken the reasoning abilities of those who are left.  They no longer have to defend their opinions against real opponents and so they descend into lazy idealism that is ungrounded in reality.  And so, we end up with echo chambers and silos where we preach to the choir.

There have been some positive steps taken.   In 2022 Marjorie Taylor Greene attended the America First Political Action Conference.  She became the first member of Congress to show she was not afraid of the white supremacist label associated with attending a dissident right event.  J.D. Vance refused to condemn her for it.  The Claremont Institute in California has taken small steps to have dialog with members of the dissident community.  There are the beginnings of dissident ideas being mainstreamed on national shows like Tucker Carlson’s broadcast.  These are small things but they are a beginning.

As for my humble part, I’m just glad when people leave comments; good, bad or confusing.  Any communication is better than none, I guess.  So, onward and upward.  Please leave your comments below.

Nate Silver Discovers the Liberal Echo Chamber!!!

During the run-up to the vote for the Brexit and also for Trump’s presidential victory it was consistently the case that all the establishment news sources declared emphatically that victory for the progressive position was a foregone conclusion. In fact, these pronouncements were almost always attended by snarky jibes at anyone who even hinted at an alternative outcome. And of course, the further to the moonbat-left you ventured, the more manic these pronouncements became. Especially memorable were the efforts by Stephen Colbert, Rachel Maddow and John Oliver.
After the elections, these same sources were a study in shock and astonishment. Immediately blame was cast at the polls. How could they have been so wrong? This was followed by the pollsters pointing to the closeness of the numbers for both sides and the accuracy the polls actually represented. And this brings us back to the current situation. Democrats want to know how the supreme confidence that the media outlets had in their sides’ victories was so wrong.
So the latest analysis that I read today was an article by pollster Nate Silver of FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, entitled “There Really Was A Liberal Media Bubble.” In it he discovers that there really was echo-chamber on the media left. Shocking!
Now of course to normal people this sudden realization seems utterly comic. But from the point of view of his constituency it really is sort of a brave statement. They will attack him for claiming that there was any kind of error on the left. The acceptable answer is that “the Russians hacked the election.”
Well anyway, Nate says that the problem was that the echo-chamber led the media to accept the beliefs of their own peers as representative of America in general. He lists the characteristics of a crowd that makes it representative of the larger population and shows why the media isn’t a good population to use. They are:
1) Diversity of opinion.
2) Independence.
3) Decentralization.
4) Aggregation.
According to Nate the media has aggregation but lack diversity, independence and decentralization. Very interesting. Regardless of how he’s defining diversity of opinion, independence and decentralization I’m pretty sure most of us don’t have any trouble believing the media lack these things. So let’s go along with this analysis. His point is that the inaccuracy of the media on these elections was unintended and correctable.
Yeah, I think that’s a bunch of bull.
I’m pretty certain that a decision was made that painting the election as completely out of reach would demotivate enough Trump voters in the swing states to win the election for Hillary. Likewise, in England shaming and demotivating Brexit voters was a conscious ploy. I’ll go further, I think it was also a desperate ploy. I think in both elections they knew it was slipping away from them but they kept up the best face they could in order to prevent a rout from occurring when their own voters realized that they weren’t locked into victory. Apparently progressive morale is a more fragile commodity than the right-wing equivalent. Evidence for this is on display on You-Tube in the large number of post-election videos highlighting unhinged leftists wailing and gnashing their teeth convinced that the Trumpocalypse had engulfed the universe and would soon end it.
So, there’s my thesis. I guess someone could claim that really it was more like people whistling past the graveyard and just trying to encourage themselves by not allowing any worrisome speculation on unfortunate outcomes. I don’t believe this. I think the combination of encouraging their own fragile partisans and dispiriting as many republican voters as possible was the tactic and the play.
And the test for this theory would be if Trump is able to deliver the results he ran on (the wall and deportation of illegal immigrants, reversing exportation of manufacturing jobs, restoring the middle-class) his reelection victory should be even more lopsided in the electoral college but more importantly, he will win in the popular vote too. Because as long as he keeps faith with his voters and doesn’t allow the media to define his presidency, he’ll prevent republican voters from losing heart and simultaneously he’ll depress the hell out of the commies.
Oh, and Nate Silver, he’s full of it. He knows exactly where things stand. It’s just a fig leaf.