Two days ago, I looked at the world through the eyes of Bill Gates. What I saw was not quite that he wanted to turn humans into batteries—Matrix-style—but that he (as an inventor of a powered tool) valued perpetual energy over human liberty. Today, I want to look at the conservative pundits through the eyes of a marketer. Why? Because my YouTube “feed” makes me feel shame before my maker.
Whether Shapiro, Prager, Tucker, or Elder (not to mention Knowles who I click on most for some unknown reason), when viewed from a marketing perspective, they all contribute more to the Left’s publicity than anything pushed by the Left. If ratings are to be trusted, this observation is even more damning.
I would never know that “chestfeeding” is a term or that the “classics” are being banned if I didn’t read and listen to the conservatives. Why wouldn’t I know? Because the Left doesn’t market themselves. Instead, the Left marches along, shaming any dissenters. The Left doesn’t shout, “We’re changing the language!” Instead, they change the language and shame dissenters. The Left doesn’t shout, “we’re banning the classics!” Instead, the Left bans the classics and shames the dissenters.
I’ve already written that if conservatives are not writing to incite war, then they’re wasting their time. Here again, I’m writing that if you’re calling attention to the Left’s actions, you’re simply acting as their marketing team. There’s no such thing as bad publicity. I’m saying here that I now believe that the conservative pundits help the Left, or, in other words, I’m arguing that conservative pundits are out of alignment with their own goals. You don’t put McDonald’s out of business by creating ads that tell people how cheap (in price or quality) their burgers are.
If the Left (or pure evil) understands anything better than the conservatives, it is that we do not live in a world of ideas. We live in a concrete world, a world where action matters most. “Raising awareness” is not action. And the Left, despite its claims to the contrary, never raises awareness. Instead, they shame dissenters. Shame is not an idea. Shame is the targeted illumination of specific actions for the purpose of conformity. Ben Shapiro revealing that the Left just passed another evil law does nothing but advertise that the Left is winning.
In any case, I’m done with conservative pundits. I own too many unread good books to waste time reading and listening to conservative pundits, now known to me as the Left’s marketing team.
Good day, Sir!
At work recently I feel like I have been unceasingly finding IT to be in my way. Anyone else feel like this? I find myself venting, “IT holds our work hostage,” in an effort to describe how unproductive the action of “including them” in a project can be. Just this morning I said, “Name one other area of life where the professional level is worse than personal level.” I was serious.
Pilots fly much better planes in their professional endeavors than their personal lives. If I want to drive a race car, then by definition it is going to be better than my Nissan. Unless you’re me, the piano you play for a professional gig is going to be better than the one you own. And on and on. But the internet? Worse at work. The hard-drive? Worse at work. Getting IT to help? Worse at work. IT departments hold our work hostage.
Anyhow, the eureka moment occurred as I read about Bill Gates in the WSJ today. Classic puff piece. Really, more than that. More than a puff piece, more than a book advertisement, it was propaganda.
But it got me thinking, why does Mr. Gates think that a private citizen can understand the following?
“The planet must reduce the amount of greenhouse emissions being pumped into the atmosphere, currently about 51 billion tons per year, to zero by 2050. Nothing less, he says, will prevent a catastrophe, and he is calling for a full-scale technological revolution to make it happen.”
I like to believe I am very well read, and I simply can’t understand it. For example, what is a “greenhouse emission”? What is “pumped”? Where does the atmosphere start and stop for this claim? What tool is capable of measuring “51 billion tons per year”?
And I have a question of my own: Does Gates understand the meaning of “extrapolation”? Because I suspect that he is extrapolating at some point. And that’s no tool. And this leads me to believe that I don’t think he has such a measurement tool.
These days in my own attempts to understand everything, I fight off the notion that it’s impossible. But the fact that the notion (‘it’s impossible’) is in my mind, I take to mean that it is impossible to understand everything. Bill Gates doesn’t seem to have this inner debate. He thinks we can understand everything and then solve every problem. Why? What evidence does he have? None. Zero. So he changes the game. It’s not about solving every problem. It’s about solving his problem. And he cons us into thinking his problem is our problem.
Here is something that helps me understand his perspective. And this is the eureka moment. He thinks everything and everyone is just a data point to be counted. And when someone thinks this, their goal shifts from traditional human goals having to do with quality of life, to new goals—counting goals—like, keeping on the power to the counting machine. (Inverse way of describing his fight to stop climate change and the end of the world.)
Put another way, the man who invented the biggest, fastest counting machine thinks we should do everything we can, sacrifice anything, and pay anything in order to keep his counting machine powered.
It’s ridiculous. But I finally see it.
Get it? I do. Hopefully you can see it even if you disagree. (Or even if you agree with his priorities—clarity is a small goal of mine here.)
As for me, I’m just happy to have achieved some level of understanding regarding the man and his motivations (and also understand those of you who want to likewise be viewed as smart). And I’m happy to be a religious man (not a droid). And I’m happy to know the secret to stopping him—turn off the computer.
Mr. Gates will be seen as the nutjob that he is when 2051 happens uneventfully. (Anyone claiming that they are speaking coherently when they talk about “measuring 51 billion tons per year” qualifies as nutty.)
Are you going to celebrate with me? I sure hope so.
Seriously. He should announce his campaign this very second.
I don’t care one bit for the man. But it’s time to fight 😉 such unadulterated groupthink. Not one democrat broke rank? Give me a break. Cowards one and all.
Yesterday as I listened, I kept thinking, “If you’re not careful, you may end up highlighting who really incited the demonstration…yourselves,” as the Left made its case.
Today, when I watched the opening statement and the barrage of montage highlighting the utter hypocrisy of the Left, I cried.
Apparently I can take the dose from the Left when offered daily.
Apparently I am overwhelmed by the administration of many of the Left’s daily doses into one five minute period.
Oh. And the rest of the “very fine people” response now seems like the most sensible sentiment he ever uttered. Anyone else find that to be true? Separation makes the heart grow fonder, I guess.
Four votes were guaranteed—my own and my three closest friends’. That’s how many votes I was certain that I would receive regardless of how my speech for president of my college fraternity went.
It was a good speech. I lost. Because we knew each other, I asked my fraternity brother who counted the votes how many votes I got.
That was it though. That was my last attempt in politics. Why? Because I lost? Nope. Because I only got the four votes that I knew I would. I, apparently, have an intuition about these kind of things.
This impeachment, like my election speech, is a waste of breath.
Even the most casual news watcher knows they don’t have the votes. Done deal.
Oh. And no one and no ink on paper (decision or vote) can prevent a riot. This is no different than the fact that neither theft nor murder can be prevented. (Nor disease.)
I have this ten year old boy in my life now. He lived the first eight years of his life halfway around the world from me. I initially guessed that that meant he would be different than typical me-first, screen-addicted American kids. I was wrong. The reach of western television, movies—who am I kidding?—the reach of YouTube, Facebook, Roblox, Fortnite (not to mention the requisite child neglect for these things to have any lasting influence) on planet Earth is near complete, I am unhappy to report.
When I grew up I loved television and movies. I wouldn’t be me without Michael Jordan, Ryne Sandberg, Rocky Balboa, and, of course, Maverick. But somehow, I knew the boundaries, however breakable, of these forms of entertainment. I knew I could never be MJ, and I knew that I had a decent shot of being Maverick.
My ten year old stepson—though deprived of essentially all screen-time for almost a year—still unflinchingly retorts, “I want to play Roblox,” in answer to my, “But what do you want to do?” character development-intending inquiries.
Despite his having no television time (or box, even), I often find that old habits die hard and am motivated at dinner to pull up a clip or song on my phone to help him assimilate—or just because I want to hear it. In a more and more infrequent, but always endearing, display of innocence (and unthinking) the boy confessed after such a video last night (food court flash mob of Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus ), “Sometimes I feel like I’m in the video.” Before I had recovered from the brutality of the unexpected admission, he added, “And it’s very hard to remember that I’m not.”
I can’t be more clear than to plainly declare that it is my fervent goal to use the rest of my time with the boy to show him that real life is better than the make-believe world on the screen.
Why? Why is this my goal?
Is it because real life is, point of fact, better than the make-believe world on the screen? No, I don’t think I could say that that is what drives me. Make believe world, the fantasy, is obviously better than real life. Obviously. Definitionally, the fantasy is better.
So why do I hope to show him that real life is better, especially considering that I just said that I believe the fantasy is better?
That’s the interesting question. To help answer it, and to make a bigger point to my conservative and frustrated readers, we need to change gears.
My guided reading through the Great Books of the Western World has landed me in Marx’s Communist Manifesto. I have lots to comment. (For example, though not the point of today’s post, I do have to say here that I had always suspected, but never could confirm until just today, that the proletariat were virgins. Good to know.)
My response to this Manifesto is forever and intimately tied to my quest regarding my step-son. And I believe my response should be every conservative’s response, too. But I never hear them admit the real problem. So it would be foolish to see them respond the same as I do.
To be clear, I am saying here that every republican (not the members of the similarly named political party in our beloved America, but those of us who see no merit to democracy as a form of government), every republican, every anti-communist, every anti-Marxist—but here I repeat myself—to date has misunderstood the problem Marx gave to the world. Their answer to Marx is always the same. Even the great republicans, like Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas, have missed the mark when they think “evidence” will help our cause.
“Evidence” is the cause of Communism—not its defeat. This is similar to how “evidence” is the cause of Fantasy. If life really was all that it’s cracked up to be, we’d have no reason to “escape” through entertainments and diversions—through fantasy. Savvy?
To repeat, “evidence” is the cause of Communism—not its defeat. This is similar to how “evidence” is the cause of Fantasy. If life really was all that it’s cracked up to be, we’d have no reason to “escape” through entertainments and diversions.
And this drops us back to my quest with my stepson, and its seeming paradox. If I believe fantasy is better than real life, then how can I want him to see that real life is better than fantasy?
Couched in political language, if I believe that communism is better than this mess of a political system we’ve inherited, then how can I want you to rebuke it in favor of this mess?
Back to my stepson.
What, dear reader, do I want? What, precisely, do I want for my stepson?
I can’t see this answer for you. You may never see the answer. But I do believe that if you can see what I want, and what drives me, then you can help rebuke the Marxists.
Again, I can’t see this answer for you. You may never see the answer.
This post may now feel like a waste of your time.
But this inability is the definition of the problem anti-Marxists face. I hope I didn’t patronize you along the way.
Maybe it’s just that I enrolled in some logic courses in college, but, to begin, I want to say that I am more and more surprised how many particular expressions of logical fallacies are put in play in formal American political debate. Then again, logic is just one part of rhetoric.
However, the main reason for this post is to say the following. There are at least two separate ideas in play at the moment. The first is whether President Trump used some sort of indirect, latent, or *wink wink* vocabulary and phraseology known by supporters and which somehow commanded them to “storm the capitol.” This post is not about this idea, however interesting it may be.
The second idea in play during today’s debate is that the United States of America can be irreversibly conquered in a time period of less than seven days, whether the next seven or some other grouping. This is what I want to write about.
The USA cannot be conquered, irreversibly or not, in seven days. If you disagree with me, then this doesn’t mean that the USA can be conquered in seven days. Instead, it means that you do not believe in the concept of National Sovereignty. By this time window talk I mean to quantify that you already don’t believe in America. This is fine! Just admit it.
There are other options than National Sovereignty. Believe as you please.
But I’m here to say that the USA is not going down in seven days—not if Trump wanted it to happen, not if you feared that it could happen. Give me a break. That’s as clear as I can be to explain why I don’t care about anything he or you say or do this next week.
Should the president be impeached? If I understand political process, it cannot be completed much earlier than seven days from now. So the question is not whether the president should be impeached. The question is whether the effort is merely symbolic. If not, then as my question’s time window decreases to six days, five days, four days, etc. as time goes on, my question’s clarity increases.
Finally, if it is symbolic, then what is the benefit of the symbolism?
Arnold: “Wednesday was the Day of Broken Glass right here in the United States.”
Me: It was Kristallnacht? More like Lunch Recess at the Elementary School. Hype.
She opens: “How do we deal with all that has happened?”
Me: This is hype. Nothing earth-shattering has happened.
She says: “This was an attack on democracy itself.”
Me: I can see that you mean to call attention to how the timing was about the certification ceremony, but everyone knows it’s ceremonial. So no, it wasn’t an attack on democracy itself. It was an attack on a superficial ceremony. In the end, I don’t change my life because criminals engage in criminal activity. More hype.
She, demonstrating her own certifiable-ness, says: “This was a sin against history.”
Me: Hype. Your readership doesn’t even believe in sin. That’s only for Mexican immigrants, African immigrants, and conservatives—in other words, those who are generally thought to be dreamers.
Her: “On the rioters: Find them, drag them out of their basements, and bring them to justice.”
Me: I think that’s a Freudian slip. “Drag them out of their basements?” The only president-elect whose been in his basement all year is Biden. Oops. I meant, the only person. Person.
Her: “Throw the book at them.”
Me: You’re old.
Her: “Now to the devil and his apprentices.”
Me: The trouble with this implication is the sheer volume of voters who chose the devil. It’s not just a data point. Real people like the devil. The solution can’t disregard this fact. Your does, so your suggestion cannot be right.
Her: “As for the chief instigator, the president of the United States, he should be removed from office by the 25th Amendment or impeachment, whichever is faster. This, with only a week and a half to go, would be a most extraordinary action, but this has been an extraordinary time. Mike Pence is a normal American political figure; he will not have to mount a new government; he appears to be sane; he will in this brief, strange interlude do fine.”
Me: It’s not an extraordinary time. It’s Friday. Hype.
Her: “Removing him would go some distance to restoring our reputation, reinforcing our standards, and clarifying constitutional boundaries for future presidents who might need it.”
Me: The Left, who just won, and then won again, does not like our reputation, has double standards, and hates the constitution. His removal was enacted by people who don’t like our reputation, have double standards, and hate the constitution.
Her: “True conservatives tend to have a particular understanding of the fragility of things. They understand that every human institution is, in its way, built on sand. It’s all so frail. They see how thin the veil is between civilization and chaos, and understand that we have to go through every day, each in our way, trying to make the veil thicker.”
Me: My true-conservative fingers say, without hype, “Umm, okay. I see the difference and we’re definitely in the chaos. The rioters attacked a symbolic ceremony. Rebuking them with a symbolic 10 day early public flogging would only feed the delusion that our civilization’s adding flour. (Thickening agent.)
Her: “I have resisted Nazi comparisons for five years, for the most part easily. But that is like what is happening here, the same kind of spirit, as the president departs, as he angrily channel-surfs in his bunker.”
Me: You resisted for five years? And then when all that is broken is some glass, now you cave? History will never compare Trump to Hitler. In the beginning, it appeared—compared to traditional presidents—that Trump had some quirks that could start down the wrong path. But after five years any of us have seen enough to espouse informed pronouncements. Here’s mine. He was nothing—nothing—like Hitler. He was like Trump.
Closing thought: Peggy, dear, you’re wrong because of your premise. No one will be reading history in the future—no one of consequence at least. Your character, not Trump, took the hit with this one. You can’t cover your ass with one op-ed piece—not because the piece wasn’t clearly breaking ties, but because the piece was only written for a future audience who will never exist.
Now we wait to see who’s right. If they remove Trump, your finger is on the pulse. And I have a newfound respect for your influence. If they don’t, my finger is on the pulse. Good luck.