Counter Conspiracies
2016 was the year of vindication for conspiracy theorists. It was a magical time when you could say things like, "holy crap, Alex Jones was right about everything...." and not sound too crazy. Much of that was because of multiple leaks of Democrat emails. One prominent conspiracy theory is that the US lies about why it goes to war, which is practically a mainstream belief, much as they try to depict us as fringe nutjobs. For instance, we were rallied to support military action against Libya for the usual reasons: because Democracy = Good, and, if we did nothing, then a mean man was going to kill babies. The Sydney Blumenthal emails not only revealed what we assumed to be true - that the war was really about geopolitical considerations, particularly French objections to an independent economic / political bloc rising in North Africa - but that the US Secretary of State was informed of the reality. Other emails would substantiate other conspiracy claims, such as collusion between the media & Democrats, or the machinations of the DNC to elect Clinton over Sanders.
2018 is the year of confusion for conspiracy theorists. The thing about a conspiracy theory is it still needs to hold up as a theory; it must satisfy Occam's razor or yield predictive power. The proposition that actors are collaborating in private to further their own interests must provide a more consistent explanation for observations than the ostensible, publicly promoted scenario. For instance, the belief that America goes to war to promote democracy for the benefit of civilians yields negative predictive power. If you believe the US invaded Iraq to bestow sweet democracy to its people, and to reduce the threat of WMDs, then you would go all in on a bet that the US would invade North Korea as well, and perhaps bet that the US would not invade Libya after they scrapped their WMD programs. However, if you believe that the US has its own reasons for picking its fights, and then promotes desired actions to the citizenry with whatever lie it thinks will sell, then you'll be somewhat less confounded by world events as they unfold.
So the essence of the conspiracy theory is that the culprits use deception to engage in actions of self interest. It's difficult to concoct conspiracy theories these days because it's not clear how the underhanded tactics of the elites are serving their interests at all. Look at the recent chaos in the Senate. Apparently they had some vision that they'd block Kavanaugh with disturbing public spectacles, win back Congress and impeach Trump. One almost wants to raise the conspiracy theory that Michael Avenatti is a Trump operative, who brilliantly morphed the left's plausible fake sexual assault accusations into implausible fake serial gang-rape accusations. But if he is a secret double agent, then Elizabeth Warren must be one as well, and Dianne Feinstein for that matter, and Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder and...and eventually your theory becomes that the entire Democrat leadership are secretly conspiring to get Republicans elected.
It all makes the migrate caravan hard to interpret, which seems to be mostly an inorganic venture. Most people don't believe that ladies with $400 strollers are pushing 4 kids a thousand miles on foot to flee a violent Honduran regime, nor that the caravan's expected arrival just before the US midterms is anything but a political calculation. The best we can determine is that plot is to force Trump to respond with military force at the border, which hopefully will generate at least one image of evil Trump goonies oppressing cherished brown invaders of peace, which they'll broadcast 24/7 on the propaganda channels and convince the the good-hearted Americans to vote against the evil orange dictator and his cronies at the ballot box. Apparently, Hondurans are so stupid that they'll crawl a thousand miles over broken glass to leave one violent dictatorship for an even more violent (plus racist) dictatorship. But the story doesn't have to make sense. They just want the imagery for TV broadcast. That seems, at least, to be the best-fitting conspiracy theory.
It's hard to understate just how out-of-touch our elites are. You almost have to wonder if this isn't another counter conspiracy theory, like supposing that Avenatti was secretly aiding conservatives. Wouldn't it make more sense if the horde of immigrants marching towards our undefended border was the work of the sitting president, who previously won on his policy of strong immigration enforcement? Do the Democrats really think framing another election on their open-borders advocacy will be a winning formula? It seems like another counter conspiracy because they're giving Trump what every incumbent desires: a common enemy. The basic game of politics is unite the base and divide the opposition. The American elites are making a bet that most of America believes what they believe: that all worldly evil emanates from white trailer park hillbillies with their silly Christianity, and thus anything to darken up American demographics is a noble pursuit, that the migrants are inherently victims of white people and must be let in, and that white Americans will do anything to avoid being labeled as racists. In effect, they're attempting to trigger the NPC programming of the American populace, who have been born, raised, and educated in a stew of liberal propaganda that reminds us constantly that the worst vice in all the world is racism. The left don't have to make compelling arguments - in fact they are incapable of doing so - but merely to provide the right stimulus to trigger the pre-programmed "that's not who we are" response.
But they are really making the bet that our ideological programming will overpower our biological programming. Most Americans are still having kids, even these days, and innately recoil at the visual scenes, which we've already been treated to - of unruly mobs headed for our own homeland. The instinct of normal people is to protect the children at all cost. It hardly matters to most what the demographics is. If a mob of Russians were working their way to our border we'd respond the same way. When presented with a real threat, the people will always choose the strongman willing to fight the intruders. Even the most wild-eyed feminist today would be begging for another Churchill figure if tomorrow actual Nazis were lobbing V2 rockets into the heart of San Francisco. The only real inoculation to that reality to invasion from the southern border is the belief that "well they won't be in my neighborhood", which might pacify east coast blue blood liberals, but you have to suspect that alcohol sales and Xanax prescriptions may be on the raise in places like southern California and Texas.
The caravan of hope ignores our other programming. Even civic nationalists, who really annoy far-right hate thinkers, will be triggered by images of Hondurans marching towards America (in itself okay because race and culture don't matter, so long as they agree to the civic contract) chanting their own national anthem while burning a US flag with a swastika painted on it. Civic nationalists have great sway over the swing vote, and they will not be impressed with this rejection of the implied civic contract of the American pseudonation. The caravan is likely to succeed in its goal of uniting the base and dividing the opposition, but in favor of Trump, not the Democrats.
Unarmies
Scott Adams likes to remark that we can look at the same reality and view one of two or more different movies. The left have described a caravan of refugees. The right depict a horde of invaders. Which movie is correct? Well, they both are. Central Americans want to leave their shithole countries for greener pastures. In America they can get a career if they're hard-working, welfare if they aren't, and generally be worshipped for their skin tone. Any country that wants to wave cash around and say all are welcome is going to get takers, who can honestly be described as economic refugees. But they're also invaders. Many can't see it that we, because they picture an invasion as involving weapons and violence. By definition, armies are armed.
Consider unarmed armies, or unarmies. We note that when Napoleon invaded Russia, to pilfer resources and generally impose his political will, that he ordered his army to drag guns, artillery, and their ammunition with them the many hundreds of miles across Europe. They would have preferred to spare the burden and the expense, no doubt, but the use of weapons was required because the Russians did not consent to hand over their resources or sovereignty to the French. What if the Russians had instead promised not to resist the French claims on their country? Well, they could have forgone the arms entirely and engaged in a peaceful caravan towards the steppe. They could even burn Russian flags along the way if they wanted, because what would it matter? Of course, if such a scenario were realistic then we would be talking about the former Russians, long since vanquished.
Unarmies implies uncivilizations. And uncivilizations can't last long, or so we suspect. The only previous example seems to be Europe, whose caravans of peaceful un-invaders looked eerily like the current situation in the Americas. Same deal, with massive numbers of so-called refugees streaming northwards who seem to be funded by some organizing entity. And Europe still stands. For now, at least. The fastest growing parties are nativist, and yet Merkel is still the de facto leader of the EU. We suspect the EU is doomed and the chance of civil war on the continent inches ever higher, but we'll have to wait and see, because it is literally the only known example of a civilization throwing open its doors and saying, "c'mon in everyone, and have some money."
video reading & discussion: https://www.bitchute.com/video/C92LUHVk7XXK/
No comments:
Post a Comment