Truth

There is Always Censorship

Mark Noonan1 Comment

I have said many times in the past that all education is indoctrination and all law is the imposition of morality: it is just a debate over what dogmas and morality will be imposed. The Left and the Libertarians reject this with scorn and even most on the Right would be uncomfortable in saying it, but it is nevertheless true. Something will always be imparted to the rising generation. We can see this right before our eyes when we see polls showing something like 25% of youngsters say they are something other than straight. The idea that a fourth of humanity would not be biologically geared towards reproduction is both theologically and biologically absurd, but the kids say they are. And they say this because they’ve been told to say this. Like all young people, they want to know what to say and do in order to be accepted into society and the sure-fire pathway to acceptance these days is to be a weirdo…and so weirdo they are.

But there is a follow-on to both my assertions that I’ve only tangentially brought up before: and that is there is always censorship to defend the reigning dogma. I’ve hinted as this before when I’ve discussed things like the Inquisition and pointed out that it wasn’t set up to prevent thought and development, but to ensure that thought and development went in the right direction. Most people these days would condemn such an idea but such it was, and something like it is necessary in any society. These days the reigning orthodoxy is not defended by learned men backed up by the rack but, instead, is defended by ideological gatekeepers backed up by social ostracism. But it all works out the same: heresy is rooted out and those who transgress are punished. With today, in my view, being worse than the Inquisition because our current gatekeepers are not only determined to prevent thought and development but, indeed, to ensure that various obvious falsehoods are asserted by society. At least Torquemada was trying to defend something true; the modern Inquisitors are determined to defend something false. But the main point here is that there is always a mechanism in society to hound those who don’t conform to the reigning orthodoxy.

This is why when I see current debates about free speech I do believe that a lot of people are missing a crucial aspect of it. This is especially true on the Right which almost universally adheres to Voltaire’s “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Perhaps Voltaire really would have (he was never put to the test), but most people won’t really. It is philosophical boilerplate. But the attitude underlying it has been used to push our civilization to the brink of extinction. Thinking it wise, we’ve allowed all manner of false, evil and downright anti-human speech to be made. And made by people who are bound and determined to exterminate everyone who disagrees with them. Most importantly, those who have imposed the current reigning orthodoxy don’t hold to Voltaire’s dictum for a minute – and they are now busily enforcing their speech codes on us.

There are, after all, things we already can’t say in public. Things we’ll only say in private, quietly and only around people we trust absolutely. And year by year the things we won’t say in public grow – because the new Inquisitors are always listening, always ready to destroy the next person who states a heresy. Don’t be too harsh with them on it. When our views dominated, to even say “damn” in a movie was a shock. Our civilization at its peak had a very strict set of rules of behavior and speech and they were enforced by a mixture of law and custom. We were told (or, actually, mostly told ourselves) that we could dispense, one by one, with these laws and customs and that we would somehow still retain our civilization. We have now found out how false that notion was…and our backs are against the wall as the ideas we let lose are getting ready to destroy us.

To be sure, those who wrote the First Amendment lived during the peak of our civilization. When they wrote those words “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” they weren’t stupid or naive. They just didn’t realize – couldn’t realize – that later generations would assume that the words meant there were no rules. These were educated, responsible men; they were sure that the First Amendment would only secure the right to say things within the rules. De Sade lived when the Constitution was being written and he was writing his vile works…I am absolutely confident that Madison would have led the charge against anyone advocating de Sade’s ideology. In the end, we allowed de Sade and his heirs free reign. How is that working out for us?

There are certain things which must be in order for a civilization to survive. For instance, the Albigensians of the 13th century held that physical reality is evil. This in stark contrast to the orthodox Christian view which asserts that God called His creation good and, of course, became incarnate. In our modern mind we would allow the Albigensians to propagate their ideas freely on grounds of who are we to say who is truly right? Those back in the 13th century didn’t and this is held as a sin against them. But the reason they exterminated the Albigensians wasn’t to stop people from thinking, but to prevent a monster from growing all powerful. A society based on the belief that matter is evil is a very different society than the Christian. It despises life and seeks only the end of all things. On balance, the people then preferred an explicable world ruled by God and eventually to be redeemed by Him.

Were they right? Well, lets take another case: Islam. Suppose it had totally triumphed instead of being fought tooth and nail for centuries. What then? Well, just take a look at the Muslim world in, say, 1823: no real advancement since it had emerged in the 7th century. Ancient nations of once-great prosperity reduced to poverty. A completely stagnant society; once the scourge of Christendom and now the plaything of European buccaneers. The Muslim worldview is different from the Christian. It is much more gloomy; deterministic and, because of this, greedily materialistic…but it is a greed only of taking and hoarding…not the materialistic greed of the Calvinists who at least asserted that one had to build.

The point here is that if you want what you have, you must defend it. If you don’t defend it, then it will be replaced by something else which will then exterminate what you have. It can’t freely compete with other world views; it must triumph, or die. As much freedom as you want, as much as you, personally, want to think and say what you want, there must be a limit. And an enforced limit. Some things that are just outside the pale and may not be openly advocated for in the public square. In short, no matter how much freedom you want, you’re going to need some censorship…just as you’ll have to use law and custom to ensure your dogmas are transmitted in the schools.

Do keep in mind that there is no correct answer. No Euclidean certainty. You’re dealing with human beings so things don’t work like that. What you will determine tolerable is a prudential judgement and may vary over time. But what must be is the hard and fast rules: what you cannot do, no matter what. To give an example: we know that Nazi ideology is evil and has no merit whatsoever. It should, then, be illegal to propagate it. If not in law, then in custom. And, of course, overt adherence to Nazism is banned in our society – you can almost ensure your social ostracism if you proclaim your adherence to Nazism. You might still have some Nazi friends, but forget a career in most avenues and be prepared for routine harassment. Do you see what I’m saying?

Just as the Nazis would arrest us all if they were given power so, too, will what we currently call the Left. The rising reigning orthodoxy. The thing which is already causing us to self-censor and now increasingly demands we overtly proclaim our support for. They don’t have any truck with the idea that speech should really be free. They believe you should only be free to say what they find acceptable. Spoiler: you aren’t acceptable. Eventually you will be squashed.

Unless you squash them, first.

This is what I mean when I talk of us using power to destroy the Left. It is an effort to place their ideas beyond the pale. When I say things like “confiscate their money” that is just a means to an end – a way to get them to stop saying things which undermine civilization. But do note that I go on to say things like, “use their money to educate the rising generation in our views.” I’m not just trying to switch my power for theirs – I’m really in the business of stamping out heresy. Of getting rid of those who assert things which are at defiance of what I consider basic, human decency.

As we brace ourselves for this battle for our civilization it is important that we start to think about things. To really determine who we are, what we believe and what we want at the end of the fight. Just opposing the Left isn’t good enough. It needs to be replaced. What will we replace it with? What will we do to prevent a repeat? What ideas will have a social and legal ban imposed?

And we must do this; because it is the only way we survive.

Open Thread

Mark Noonan23 Comments

Over on Twitter @ZubyMusic asks, “What is the most damaging popular myth?”. Getting a lot of responses, some of them jokes of course. But it did get me thinking.

And I think that the most damaging popular myth is the history (so-called) of the last 100 years. That is, what we’ve been told is the history.

I’ve yammered on quite a bit over the past couple years about aspects of our received beliefs which don’t hold up to scrutiny and I’m coming to the conclusion that just as we have Narrative-Drivers for our politics (ie, story lines created – often in advance – to drive opinion in certain directions desired by those in charge) so we’ve had History-Drivers: that is, gatekeepers in the production of history who make certain that the historical Narrative only rolls into accepted grooves.

Just as in the MSM and the larger popular media the ability to be seen and heard largely depends on your ability to do as you’re told, so too is it likely to be this way in all disciplines. Do we really want to think that there is some institutional aspect of our society which isn’t controlled? That the people who have crafted Narrative after Narrative for our immediate political debates would let slip something as crucial as how history records things? That in a world of overwhelmingly conformist thought, they’d let independent thinkers have a place all to their own?

I’m just reminded of a story I heard some years back – it involved a moderately famous man but I can’t remember exactly who at the moment, but no worry as that isn’t fully relevant here. The key thing is that this man’s father was a British colonial official at the tail end of the Empire and upon a time this man pointed out to his son a ragged ship heading north from coastal east Africa and said, “that ship is filled with slaves, and I’m under orders to do nothing about it”. The British were leaving, as were all the colonial powers and with them went any impetus to stop the slave trade…and what had been firmly suppressed was now rising to the surface as the anti-slavers quite the scene. And then, 40 years later, we were all told that the British Empire was nothing but racist colonial oppression. Of course, a true history of Africa since the end of colonial rule would rather harp upon the breakdown of services, the rise of oppression and ethnic murder, the return of slavery…but, we can’t have that, can we? Doesn’t fit the Narrative. Oh, sure, when some particularly hideous thing happens, the world takes notice (like, say, the Rwandan genocide) but it is never placed in context. If any context is given at all, the problem is ascribed to “the legacy of colonialism”, as if the people today had no agency. And then we move on, not noticing until the next outrage occurs. Meanwhile, South Africa is slipping back into Third World status as the millennium promised with the end of Apartheid breaks down under the weight of bribery, incompetence and a raft of anti-white laws and rhetoric.

Just a little bit of the actual history of Africa and none of this would have had to happen. But just as in everything else, all we got was the Narrative history…and it is sustained in spite of any contravening facts.

Pudding Brain’s Secretary of Education said the quiet part out loud – asserting that teacher’s know better than parents what is best for kids. It is absurd and evil, but they really do think that way. They believe, that is, that someone with credentials is inherently superior. No surprise there: they all rise based on their credentials and so they hold credentials as supreme. None of these people – either in government or corporation – has ever had to produce. To actually make something happen or come into existence by their own efforts. Its all just reviewing plans and picking among them based upon the Current Thing and where the strongest pressure is coming from. And they are never tossed out, never jailed, never wind up in poverty. What we’re going to have to do is change laws to require first of all real world experience before you can take a government position and, secondly, entrance exams…really tough exams. Like, say, if you are seeking employment at the Department of Transportation, one of the questions should be along the lines of, “what is the per mile cost of moving a ton of goods from Long Beach to Denver?” and “if fleet average MPG is increased by 10 percent, what will be the average annual cost to an American consumer?”. Guarantee it will weed out these credentialed morons and allow room in there for people who actually know how things work.

See that little flap of metal up the pole there that everyone is smiling about? That was a shade installation to make travel by bus more equitable in Los Angeles. No, seriously; that little bit of metal is supposed to provide shade. I guess when its high noon and if you can stand right under it. It cost $10,000.00 to install. The Progs are seriously proud of this.

How about some fun stuff, now?

Death by Going Along With It

Mark Noonan34 Comments

I’ve determined that the road to hell is not so much paved with good intentions as paved with a desire to go along to get along.

Earlier today, I saw a headline where a transwoman is upset because at the airport TSA hit “her testicles”. Actually written just like that. In itself, just another ridiculous part of modern life, but it made clear in my mind that our problem is that we’ve decided that going along with things – no matter how bizarre – is superior to holding fast to truth.

We’ve been doing it a long time, after all. Close to 40 years ago after a day at work the staff at the company I worked at, under the leadership of the company owner, broke out a bottle of whiskey and we all started having drinks to decompress from what had been a very long day. After a little while, someone broke out a book entitled something like “1,001 Worst Ethnic Jokes”. We all took turns reading from it, while continuing to drink, and it still stands in my mind as one of the funniest evenings I’ve ever had. Who was there? White people. Black people. Latinos. Jews. In other words: a very mixed ethnicity group and we all howled with laughter at the jokes. Jokes like: What’s the difference between an Irish wedding and an Irish wake? One less drunk Also: what do you call a one legged woman? Ilene. What do you call a one legged Japanese woman? Irene.

You can’t do that these days. Can you imagine the outrage? And we got here not all at once, but by a series of surrenders. In my mind, it started with Elton John got all huffy at some award ceremony after Sam Kinison made a joke about homosexuality. Ol’ Elton – who was allegedly a rebel rock star – got all huffy over a joke…and just about right then and there, “PC” entered the cultural mainstream. And it did seem small, didn’t it? I mean, after all, the joke offended that guy…so, just don’t make the joke again. And then the next joke. And the next and the next and the next and here we were in 2023 where people risk social and economic ruin because 20 years previously they might have made an ethnic joke. This cowardice is simply killing civilization as, step by step, mere sanity is becoming socially unacceptable while the most lunatic are awarded the leadership role.

We’ve been so busy worrying about who we might offend that we’ve allowed bullies and liars to dictate our social actions. Whoever shouts gets deference. Whoever lie isn’t called out on them. All so we won’t cause offense. Even though we know they’re not really offended..but mostly just trying to get over on us. Secure some bit of unearned wealth or social credit by browbeating us. And it really has to stop: we have to stop being afraid. And then we have to start punishing them. It shouldn’t be the guy who told the off color joke or who chose his words poorly losing the job – it should be the person complaining about it. As soon as one of these bullies sticks their nose in and starts whining about it, whammo: you’re done. Out. Ridiculed and exiled from society.

It is necessary for two reasons. Firstly, for our own defense. We don’t want to lose our jobs over nothing. But the second reason is most crucial: by punishing the whiners, we’ll make whining unpopular. There will be an immediate increase in social courage if we start beating up the bullies rather than joining the bully in beating up the victim. It will get more people to speak what is really on their minds…and act upon their beliefs. A huge amount of leftwing success over the past 20 years, especially, has been simply because most people have been afraid to openly oppose it. Time to rebalance the books: to make them afraid to speak up while we say whatever we please.

What Do We Really Know?

Mark Noonan32 Comments

A Twitter friend went into the way back machine and reminded me of the Nuclear Freeze movement of the 1980s. I guess you’d have to be at least 50 to have any memory of it at all: so, a lot of the youngsters in the world wouldn’t know what it was about. Of course, you could Google it – but if you did that, you almost certainly won’t find out about it.

Oh, you’d read a lot about it. And what you read would be almost invariably praising it to the skies. But what you probably won’t read about it is that it was nothing more than a Soviet front organization. We were about to build and deploy a type of nuclear weapon the USSR (a) couldn’t build and (b) couldn’t defend against. Our having these weapons while the USSR didn’t would put us in the driver’s seat – the USSR would essentially be forced to throw in the towel on Cold War competition. So, the USSR did the one thing it was actually good at: call forth the Useful Idiots of the West to ensure the USA shot itself in the foot.

I remember it, now, very well. Especially one of the leading voices of it: Dr Helen Caldicott. She was just about everywhere during the time. Highly in demand for your Soviet inspired peace march and conferences around the world. And she was an Authority on it! She knew was she was talking about! After all, she’s a doctor.

Well, a pediatrician…who never had any experience dealing with either nuclear power or weapons…but she fit the bill: someone who seemed oh, so nice and had Smart credentials and how can you argue against her? You can’t hug your kid with nuclear arms!

The drivel almost worked – huge pressure was placed on Reagan and Thatcher to ditch the new weapons. But, they didn’t…and then the weapons (along with other Reagan tactics) did precisely what they were supposed to do: force the Soviets to the table at a disadvantage and eventually unravel their Empire in Europe (the fall of the USSR was really just a bonus that nobody could foresee).

But that isn’t our issue for the moment – the real issue is that a pack of ridiculous lies nearly sunk Reagan’s USSR policy and even though the lies failed at that, they still managed to implant into the public mind that nuclear power is somehow extra dangerous and that the only safe thing to do with nuclear power is have nothing to do with it. By this time in our history, almost all our electricity production should come from nuclear power. A whole series of plants all across America should be humming with cheap, clean nuclear energy providing far more than our greatest need. We’re not because of people like Caldicott got themselves fooled and then managed to fool enough other people.

And, heck, I have to admit – back there in the late 80s and early 90s, I was wary of nuclear power. I still figured we should go for it, but I had this mental image of it being extra dangerous and we had to take extra care around it…and this was after I got out of the Navy, when I had literally stood next to an operating nuclear power plant aboard a submarine. How could I have been so stupid?

Of course it had to be operated properly – but so does any device. Operate a solar plant incorrectly and you’ll cause a lot of problems. We got into our minds, though, that nuke was Super Dangerous! Thousands of years must pass before it is clean! For goodness sake, at no point did people stop living in Hiroshima. A few days after the bomb went off and all the bodies were cleared away, the people were already starting to rebuild. It is a city of nearly 1.2 million people: far larger than it was when bombed in 1945. Here’s the photo of the iconic dome of Hiroshima. Tell me, what immediately leaps out here?

That is doesn’t quite look like the wasteland of 1945…the trees really take away from the whole End of the World vibe we’re supposed to get here.

Obviously, nuclear weapons are very destructive and nuclear power is something that you have to be careful with…but there is clearly a bit of a mental psychosis in the popular imagination about it which is not supported by things we can easily observe. Things we can know just by knowing them. I doesn’t take special knowledge or insight to know that Hiroshima is a thriving city…but we, in a sense, don’t know it…and so we fear nuclear power and think that using a nuclear weapon is unthinkable.

And then you start to ponder: what else are we refusing to know? How much of what we “know” are lies?

You can do this yourself: just take some subject and think about it. Think about what you know but then take the crucial step: pretend you don’t know it and think about it for a bit. Does what you “know” match up with what you think? Like this:

One of the things you’ll find asserted – in books, movies, documentaries, everywhere – is that the Anglo-American alliance could not have defeated Nazi Germany without the USSR. This is an article of faith. It is true and may not be questioned. If you do, you’re an idiot. I mean, think about it – at least 5 million German and Axis soldiers fell against the USSR. If the USSR hadn’t killed them, then they would have all been turned against us and we never could have won!

Makes sense, right? I mean, that is a lot of dead Krauts and it would have taken us a powerful long time to off them, ourselves. But when examined, it simply falls apart.

At the end of the war, more than 21 million Americans and Brits were in the armed forces. This does not count British Empire forces: even excluding Britain’s Indian Army, this probably worked out to two or three million more. But lets just go with the Yanks and the Limeys.

By 1945, the Brits were at maximum strength: 5 million was about what their population could sustain in the field. The USA could still call up three or four million more than we had, though that would be pushing it. The Germans, if they strained every nerve to the breaking point, could maybe get 10 million into uniform. Starting to see something here? Just the Anglo-Americans, alone, vastly outnumbered the Germans. Throw in the Italians and minor Axis allies and you still have a big advantage for the Anglo-Americans. When you add in that the UK/USA had vastly more economic capacity than the entire Axis (including Japan) and had open access to all the resources in the world what you conclude is that regardless of how any particular engagement went, the only question on defeating Germany was how long it was going to take? Having the USSR in got the job done in 1945, rather than 1946 or 1947. That’s it. Good thing, of course; but certainly far different from “we must be thankful because without the USSR we couldn’t have won the war.”

And who likely floated the idea that we had to have the USSR? The USSR – and their useful idiots in the United States. Starting with those who gave away the store at Yalta in order to get Russia into a war against Japan we had already won.

That is just one mental exercise which, once concluded, lays to rest a myth which is believed really for no other reason than it has been repeated over and over again. But I think we all have to start doing this – start thinking entirely fresh. Roll it around in your. They say this happened: well, does it make sense that it would happen, or happen that way? They say we must do this: why? They say we have retain this policy or alliance: are we sure?

Last night I posted a Tweet where I asserted that the US government must keep no secrets. That a Republic must do her business in the open for all the citizens to see as it is done. Very smart people said we can’t have that – even George Washington believed in keeping diplomatic secrets! Well, sure: if Washington was President today, I’d probably trust him to keep some things confidential. But we’ve got Pudding Brain and his merry band of morons running the show: you really want them to be able to keep what they’re doing secret from you?

But I came to this conclusion by a bit of a winding intellectual road and it just flashed in my mind that secrets are for con artists You don’t keep secret honest dealings – you keep a con secret because if your con gets out into the open, enough people will see it in time to warn your mark off. Heck, even God doesn’t really keep secrets from us – He’s got some Mysteries, but He has shown them to us: we just can’t fully understand God. Go figure. But secrets are just not good – and in government, they are downright bad. And so, the whole FBI/CIA/NSA “National Security” apparatus, in my view, has to be ditched. It is keeping secrets mostly to hide its incompetence. But I only got to this view by thinking anew about everything – by taking nothing for granted. I got here by thinking – and we really do have only two ways to live:

  1. By thought that has been thought out.
  2. By thought that hasn’t been thought out.

For nigh to a century, we’ve been going on “not thought out”. I think we need to change that. We need to find out what we really know.

The Lies We Contend With

Mark Noonan71 Comments

When Andrew Yang announced he was leaving the Democrat party, I commented to him that nearly everything he believed was a lie, but also noting that huge amounts of what I used to believe were lies as well. That I now could see the whole system of lies, right and left, which have been used to keep we, the people compliant. Then someone asked me when did the lies start?

To be sure, there have been lies since the Garden. But I do believe what we’ve dealt with these past decades is unique in human history: a whole series of lies maintained at all costs by people who do know better. And while it grew out of a host of factors, I pinpoint the need for a system of lies to the Korean War, specifically to the Truman Administration decision to not seek victory.

We were all told – and we all believed – that when Truman fired MacArthur it was the right and brave thing to do. That MacArthur was off the ranch and threatened not merely a Third World War, but the very Constitutional structure of the United States. Like all good lies, this had a kernel of truth: as a military officer, MacArthur was bound to obey the orders of his civilian Commander in Chief. But that bit of truth was used to blind us to the fact that in a cold blooded and cruel manner, Truman and his Administration had decided that people would continue to die, with no hope of victory, until the Communists decided to end the killing. That was the issue. It always was the issue. And it isn’t even mentioned, for the most part. When it is, it is quickly passed over. No one wants to really consider this. Most of the people who died in the Korean War – Koreans, Chinese and Americans – died after Truman made his decision. They died fighting it out on an arbitrary line of no moral or strategic value. Truman did this. And then slept soundly at night. So did the Defense officials and the generals. The soldiers on the line slept less soundly. And they died. Truman’s decision wasn’t made to spare lives, but merely to sustain the decision he had made to enter the war when he had lost the will to win the war. He lied to the American people in order to save his political prospects.

Sound familiar?

When the Chinese intervened we had two morally acceptable courses open to us: fight it out to victory, or to capitulate. We chose the immoral path: keep fighting, but only to provide cover for a coward’s decision to neither win nor quit. Rely on it: they sized it up. They knew that with our absolute command of the sea and our aerial superiority that the Chinese could not force us all the way out of Korea. They could calculate: this many dead and wounded per month, this large a pool of draftees to send: presto, we could sustain the line indefinitely. All it would take is lots of people – mostly poorer people the leaders never met – dying. The Western Front is held up as the immoral waste of lives, but it wasn’t: as many mistakes as the Allies made, their goal was always total victory. The lives weren’t to be expended to no point. In Korea, they were to be expended pointlessly. And to do this, they had to lie. They had to tell us that if we went for victory, it would lead to WWIII as the Russians would go to war with us and we’d all be nuked. End of the world! If we don’t have Johnny from Akron and Li from Shanghai blow each other to bits over and over again, we’re all gonna die!!!!

Too bad for Johnny and Li: but, hey, at least 24 hour round the clock nuclear holocaust was avoided.

Flaw in the theory: Russia only exploded her first nuke in 1949 and the best they had for a strategic bombing was the TU-4, a reverse engineered B-29 which was incapable of reaching most of the United States from Soviet air bases. Even we didn’t have a real nuclear bomber until the introduction of the B-36 in 1948. Nuclear war as in total wipe of humanity simply wasn’t in the cards during any point of the Korean War. Additionally, there was very little chance that an aging Stalin would bring his country into another World War as Russia was still rebuilding from WWII (it would be the mid-60’s before Russia was fully recovered from the destruction of WWII).

In short, a cruel calculation was made to not win as that seemed more difficult and then a series of lies were generated to explain why we wouldn’t win but the dying would keep going. That, in my view, is when our government became a web of lies…and when all sides of the political spectrum (except a few put down as kooks) became wedded to the web of lies.

In the end, we built up a massive, national security State in service to this concept that at any moment now the Russians would nuke us and so we had to have a massive nuclear force on hair trigger alert, a gigantic Army ready to fight (but not win!) anywhere in the world and a whole bunch of what we were doing kept secret from the people, who were to be monitored and manipulated. By the 1960’s, in my view, the thing was feeding on itself. Just getting ever more crazy and using ever larger amounts of BS to justify itself. Because after a while, people were invested in it. Defense contractors, think tanks, universities, media companies: a whole host of individuals and institutions essentially made their living by sustaining the fiction that we can’t win a war, but we needed a massive military and secret police (FBI, CIA, NSA) to fend off defeat. Nobody was ever allowed to do two things which would cut to the chase:

Drive the Marxists out of America

Directly confront the USSR with a “war or quit” ultimatum.

We couldn’t do these things because they would solve the problem. Getting rid of the American Marxists would end the internal threat and challenging the Soviets to fight or back off would either get them to back off, or get them to fight (they would have backed off: the balance of forces all through the Cold War was overwhelmingly in our favor – they knew it, and so did we).

We had to pretend that having Che Guevara wanna-bees in our schools and bureaucracies was just the price of freedom. Even so-called Conservatives said we had no right to push such people out. We had to allow America to be flooded with a series of corrosive, anti-human Marxist ideologies which sapped our will and warped our sense of right and wrong. And we had to do this simply to sustain lies. In this case, the lie that if we didn’t let our enemies subvert us, our enemies would win. And still all based on the first lie: the Korea Lie – that we can’t win a stand up fight to simply end this once and for all.

Here in 2021, it is all self-sustained. We’re not even allowed to win a fight with rag tag Islamist militias. And we’re appointing Marxist economists to positions in our government.

Reject it all: reject all the lies. You don’t have to fund your enemies. You don’t have to sustain the National Security State. You don’t have to protect those who hate you and want you enslaved. You are sane. You want law and order, sound economics, your people come first: these are normal, sane attitudes and anything against them has to go down. Your laws are for you: for sanity. Not for them, the insane. The liars. The laws do not protect evil. They do not foster insanity. Anyone who says they do is lying to you. Ignore them and take what is yours by right: take back, that is, your citizenship in the Republic and insist that the Republic exist for you, not for those who hate you and lie to you and wish to plunder you.

Our Primary Duty is to Truth, Not Theory

Mark Noonan49 Comments

A little comic strip was put out (see it here) and the premise is that we gun-totting red-neck morons are hypocrites because we’re not using our guns to stop the Feds from arresting Antifa (though the cartoonist cleverly uses a “mom” as the person being taken away by Drumpf’s Gestapo, rather than a molotov-throwing fanatic). My response to this was:

Remind me again why I’m supposed to defend people who think I’m inherently racist.

And this is even supposing the police are Gestapo and it was an innocent mom being rounded up. But, of course, it isn’t Gestapo and it isn’t moms. It is regular, clearly identified federal officers arresting people in the process of committing federal crimes (like one idiot who was ID’d as an arsonists because he had his name tattooed on his back). None of us feel the 2A gives us the right to shoot at police officers in the performance of their normal duties. 2A, as you and I know, is only if the police try to enforce unconstitutional laws. Like, say, a law (the Left wants) making “misgendering” someone a hate crime.

But getting to the point I made: why should I defend my enemies? I know the True Conservative/Libertarian premise has been that we must defend our enemies in order to prove we are in favor of freedom. I used to believe that. Trust me: 20 years ago, I’d have gone to the mat to defend the proposition that I had to protect a Commie’s right to speak.

I have revised my views.

Communists, Nazis and Fascists definitely have some things in common. One of them is a firm desire to suppress any ideas which aren’t their own. Another commonality is that they will all use a liberal, democratic system to advance themselves into power and once they have the power, they then use it to make sure no one can ever get rid of them. In the Trio of Totalitarianism, regardless of what the three may kill each other over, the unified front is that only the Totalitarians get to have power and everyone else gets suppressed (often very brutally and unto death).

This is the truth. There is no way around it: and the Truth shall not be forced to give ground to lies. That is what our real problem is – all up and down in our society. In an effort to be fair, we conceded that disgusting lies have a place alongside the most beautiful truth. We have to stop that. Lies are wrong and bad and have no place in a civilized nation. In theory, of course: free expression of ideas. In practice, we can’t allow lying ideas to be expressed without let or hindrance.

But Mark, you say, who gets to define it? Well, we do. You know: you and me and that guy down the street. It was only a Libertarian pinhead and a liberal judge who decided we have to let lying Commies walk around free in the USA. Make a law – even if it requires an amendment – saying that the propagation of Totalitarian ideologies is illegal in the USA. Then let the Commies and Nazis and Fascists try to prove their ideology isn’t that…love to hear a Commie explain that he’s totes ok with people retaining private property after the Revolution…and then show him in his own damned book that he is not ok with it. But the main thing is that we’ll no longer be saying “see, we let you spout your evil lies, we’re in favor of freedom!”. Instead, we’ll be saying, “your lies are vile; convince me they aren’t or stop saying them.” It is a whole world of difference.

If you wonder why things are so screwed up in the USA, look no further than the fact that we have allowed a host of lies to walk free. If you wonder why doors are locked; kids are fat and on psychological medicine; bums are defecating on the streets; purple haired weirdos are given power… it is all because we allowed liars to lie with impunity. We said – how stupidly! – that if we didn’t allow the liars to lie, then we’d have no chance to speak the truth! What happened is that the cacophony of lies drowned out the truth…until, now, telling the truth in public may get you fired, arrested or at least hounded out of public life.

Our primary loyalty must be to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And if reaffirming truth requires some quite brutal actions (it almost certainly will), then that is what we’ll have to do. It is either demand adherence to truth, or live in nothing but lies. It is our choice.