Maximum Hyperbole

This came up on my facebook feed the other day, posted by a liberal friend. It wasn't a viral meme or anything, just something he wrote. But it struck me as being the most hyperbolic thing I've ever read. I used to comment on these things. In this case, I was able to quickly create a 3-point rebuttal to dismantle the notion. But what's the point? At some point it feels like lecturing the neighbor's dog not to bark on a Sunday afternoon. The dog's going to bark regardless, and from a certain perspective it makes sense for the dog to bark.

I realize that there is no real need to go into this for most readers here. But one of the major benefits of writing a blog is it's therapeutic value, like a journal. One can put the rebuttal out for people who might appreciate it, while not annoying those who can't be bothered to think. Lincoln used to write letters to people who were annoying him and then not mail them. I can guarantee you that if he was alive today he would be a prolific blogger writing under a pseudonym. At any rate, my 3-point rebuttal.

1. The Republicans opposing the bill come from the conservative wing, not the liberal. That in itself is all you need to know. (And, in fact, the defection today of two more conservative senators doomed it to the waste bin, where it properly belongs.) They might respond that no liberal Democrats support the bill, but that only means that they are all, every one of them, partisan hacks who don't know what's good for them. They won't support any legislation proposed by Republicans. They would probably reject single-payer healthcare if it came from the wrong side of the aisle. The Republican plan is not repeal; it is rename. The major tenets of Obamacare remain. The government has still declared lordship over one sixth of the American economy. The Senate bill keeps all that in place, but renames it and makes it a Republican program. So the left keeps, conservatively, 90% of their favored policy, while all the downside is pushed over into their opponent's court. No savvy businessman would ever turn down such a sweet deal. The Republican say "we'll give you liberal healthcare and take all the blame when it fails." And the Democrats despise it! Their lack of leadership is laughable. On the other hand, we can reasonably blame the failure of the bill on Trump. No, he didn't invent the healthcare fiasco, but at some point he changed his campaign promise from Repeal to Repeal & Replace. He clearly did so to try not to scare off the blue-collar Rust Belt Democrats who ended up giving him the election, but at the cost of not being able to actually carry out the promise of substantial reform. Still, no change in policy is our second-best option, so we'll take it. The Democrats think they've won a victory here. Let them play pretend, I guess.
2. The principle underlying the notion that not providing state-run healthcare is equivalent to murder is generally that not providing people with anything is equivalent to stealing that thing. We've heard this kind of stuff before from that camp. For instance, feminists shriek into the night about the evil Republicans denying their right to healthcare by not paying for their birth control. Not giving them birth control is the same as forcing them to be pregnant against their will. And forcing someone to be pregnant against their will is rape! So not giving them money is rape. It's just a shakedown. The problem with the principle that not giving is the same as taking is that there is no limitation to it. Not giving someone a home is the same as kicking them out on the street. Society should provide food or it is inflicting starvation on the destitute. There's no end to the things society should provide. Status, entertainment, companionship, sexual satisfaction, even indulgence of addictions and fetishes must be provided by the state, or it is causing people to live in agony. We're already living in a world where the taxpayer is obligated to provide sex-change operations and hormone "treatment" for the mentally ill.
3. The final rebuttal to this is that it is profoundly hyperbolic. Passing the Senate bill, which would have cemented Obamacare into the legislative record, was seen as equivalent to killing millions of people per year. This is so easy to disprove that it's pointless. Can liberals show that after the law went into effect around 2011 that millions of people were saved per year? Of course they can't. And that assumes the Senate bill repeals Obamacare, of which it does nearly the opposite.

This shit is so stupid we shouldn't even be talking about it. But tens of millions of your fellow Americans believe it to be true. This is the fundamental flaw of democracy. Anyone who could believe such utter nonsense should not be allowed within 200 yards of a ballot box. In democracy everyone has equal say in who the president is. Where is there an analog to this approach to managing large organizations? Look at businesses. They face constant competition, and poorly organized businesses are ravaged by market forces. And there are no businesses of consequence where all workers have equal say in who the CEO is. Do companies set policy based on the opinion of the majority? No. If they tried they would fail, yet we have no problem running a country that way. There's this expectation that the country is just fated to perpetual success. It's a sucker's bet. Short the system.

Democrats Terrified of Losing Illegal Votes

Despite the left's snarky and endless "52%" comments, Trump was probably right that he won the popular legal vote. There is a fair amount of evidence to support the claim, including data from past elections, polling results of illegal immigrants, and the fact that the limited investigation into the 2016 election (from which Jill Stein profited handsomely) only revealed rampant voter fraud in Democrat strongholds like Detroit. In fact, the recounts were quickly closed down when they began to increase Trump's victory margin.

Trump's response has been exactly what he should be doing: working to purge illegal voting from the rolls. If illegal voting is significantly reduced, combined with the fact that he'll surely do even better in 2020 than 2016 among legal voters, means he stands to win a massive re-election victory. What's makes this all the better is that the left has been crying for months that the election was rigged. So Trump has not just the legal justification to purge fake votes, but the moral imperative to do so as well. All he has to do is mumble something about stopping Russian interference and he's made a more coherent statement than anything the election-denying left has uttered since November 8. (And probably well before that.)

What is the left's response? Concern for the sanctity of the election process? A realization that, by broadcasting nonstop hysteria about a rigged election for the last eight months, they can't possibly object to efforts to secure the voting process? Of course not! They're doing what they always do. Lies and deceit. Here's a video from the left that showed up on my facebook feed. It's a message from Jason Kander, who ran for governor of Missouri and was strongly defeated by his Republican opponent. I remember I actually preferred him as a candidate but refused to vote for anyone who endorsed Clinton. Well good thing, because I didn't realize he's a social justice retard. Really we should make that assumption at this point: anyone who's willing to publicly identify as a Democrat these days is probably left-wing nut until proven otherwise. Here's his piece. It's only 30 seconds. It opens,

The Trump administration is actively working to undermine faith in American democracy.

What a blatant falsehood. The whole point is to purge illegal votes that undermine faith in American democracy. For someone to go in front of the world and parrot blatant falsehoods means that person is either (a) a sociopath or (b) what Jordan Peterson would term as ideologically possessed. The third possibility is that the person has been otherwise corrupted (bribed, blackmailed, etc) but even then those people still probably fall into either (a) or (b). For the side that has called the election rigged for months and paid millions of dollars to legally contest the election through recounts to then accuse anyone of undermining faith in democracy is just juvenile and insane. The despicable man continues,

[The program] is all about making it harder to vote. So if one of your friends tells you that they're going to pull their voter registration in response to this, you tell them that's exactly what the other side wants them to do.

If your friend is going to pull their registration because the federal government is reviewing rosters it's because they're are illegally registered. Duh. Super duh. They're trying to spin this narrative that the reason hundreds of people in Colorado are revoking their voter registrations is that they are normal hard-working Americans being intimidated by evil Drumpf. Bullshit. They are revoking their voter registrations because they are either illegally registered in multiple districts or because they have no right to vote in America to begin with. Duh.

Kander is advocating that, to resist Trump, American citizens risk charges of felony voter fraud and illegal aliens risk deportation. Democrat voters are just cannon fodder for the power-hungry neurotic leftist elites. These people aren't just wrong, they're evil, but if they want to chew up their own over petty obstructionism, that's fine by me.

The Bubble is Still Inflating, for Now

Here's an excellent discussion between two Wall Street traders of our current economic situation, particularly the role of the Fed in directing the markets.

The major takeaway of this is that, while market irrationality is at an order of magnitude higher than we've ever seen before, expect the stock market and real estate bubbles to continue inflating in the short run thanks to signals from Janet Yellen that the Fed will continue its unprecedented era of loose monetary policy, rather than continuing with the policy of increasing interest rates announced shortly after the presidential election. The guest, Greg Mannarino, describes the conundrum the Fed is in. They still hold a ton of toxic assets from the great bank bailout of 8 years ago. Many of those are in the real estate sector. If the real estate market gets hot, those sub-prime assets get, well, less sub-prime. If the real estate bubble pops again, those assets become even more sub-prime, more worthless. The Fed is in a position where it's distorting market reality by keeping the rates low, yet it wants to be able to unload those toxic assets before the bubbles pop. That is the world we live in now. The Federal Reserve can determine not only who the economic winners and losers are but holds so many assets in the market that it can determine the direction of the market at its discretion. Buying into the stock market is no longer a chance to invest in business ventures based on performance metrics as much as it is a bet as what the fiscal & monetary policy will be. It's a big casino.

The advice given by Mannarino is as follows. This is my take on it, I'd recommend just spending the half hour to listen to the video yourself if you can.

• Invest in hard assets, like gold and especially silver, whose prices are being suppressed by the monetary policy. Mannarino also sees cryptocurrency as being suppressed. (I don't know how this is done.)
• Stocks are going up in the short-term, but it's hard to know how long that will last. I would not recommend investing in stocks long-term at this point, nor keeping most of your investments in stocks. 
• The bond markets are being suppressed. These might be good to buy now while they're cheap. If you're a 401(k) holder, (and especially if you're near retirement), consider moving most of your assets into bond instruments.

Mannarino clearly takes an antifragile approach to investing. He will come out ahead in either situation by being smart about it. Follow his advice. This economy is going to tank in the short-to-middle term. Maybe we have a decade, but that's not that long. And maybe we only have days or weeks. We can't know the exact timing, but we do know the market is strongly insulated from reality, and the number one rule of economics in the universe is that the market will eventually correct itself, one way or another.

What Mannarino is doing is really an antifragile approach to investment. Yes, he has a ton of insight into market works, but ultimately his strength is that his position improves no matter when the correction occurs. Be antifragile yourself. The question you should ask yourself is, "how will my position improve when the economy inevitably disintegrates?"  You're much safer to keep 10% of your retirement investment in high-risk/high-yield stocks and the rest in bonds than you are to keep most of your investment in low-risk "safe" stocks. The stock market is not safe. In the first case you make money whether the market goes up or down. In the second you make a lot of money in an up market, but you lose your shirt in the crash. That is a fragile position.

There will be no obituary for the liberal narrative

If the progressive / media narrative was to be totally obliterated, what would that look like? We on the right spend a lot of time deconstructing the propaganda, with the unspoken expectation that, if we keep at it, if we keep exposing the logical failures of their position, and provide a more internally consistent depiction of reality, that eventually the truth will be unavoidable. It's a common theme in movies where a character finally realizes the error their ways and comes to the right side of things.

But it's naive to think we're going to have some hero's victory moment. The left is not going to come forward and admit they were wrong. The best we can hope for is quiet sidesteps. The people who were loudly liberal will become quieter. The people who were once quietly liberal will start to become quietly conservative. And the people who were quietly conservative become loudly conservative. The over-simplifies the dynamics, but the point is we aren't going to see a headline in the New York Times to the effect of Liberal Narrative Crushed, Conservatives Vindicated. The transition won't be broadcast in the literal sense, but it will be apparent to the informed observer.

We're there. Perhaps I'm not the most informed observer, but I'm calling it. What has happened this week is the spasmic death throes of the mortally wounded liberal narrative. They just went all-in on a shitty hand and lost the bluff. Yes, they went all in. They followed the kill-shot playbook. First, the New York Times runs an opinion piece suggesting that the actions of the Trump team constitute treason. This is the left's strongest possible move. The New York Times is still considered to be the paper of record. The left pretends they are a credible organization that refrains from hyperbole, and many moderates just assume that it must be so. When the NYT runs something like that, the argument is if it's in the highly respectable New York Times, there must be some validity to it. Then the rest of the mainstream media gets license to run with it as if it was credible. There's a cost to all this. They erode the credibility of their supposedly sober institutions, like the New York Times, which weakens their ability to use the tactic in the future. There are two motivations for this behavior: irrationality (get Drumpf at any cost!) and framing the public discourse. Like a magician who misdirects away from the trick, the liberals do not want the media to have to focus on the activities of the Democrats so they distract at any cost. They are buying time, trying to run out the clock. What they are buying is weeks and months of narrative control, but they are paying for it with institutional credibility that takes years and decades to build. In the long run it's a losing strategy. It's like the corporation who buys out a popular company just to own the brand name. They cut quality but maintain the prices that people will pay for the brand name. The corporation sucks the life out of the brand like a vampire. The left is willing to cannibalize its own institutions, rather than backing off to rest and regroup.

That's the dynamic generally. Established media like the New York Times take on substantial risk when they run with uber-partisan treason-bait hyperbole. But in this case there is so much more downside than the normal situation of being called out for false reporting and, as we've seen lately, having to issue retractions or even sacrifice staff. This move left a huge gaping flank against the group they're ultimately trying to protect and promote: the liberal elite. Here is just some of the blowback out of this. It's so severe one wonder is the Trump team didn't leak the DJTJ emails themselves.

• Reopens Hillary's collusion with Ukraine. She's done just exactly what Trump's team may have shown interest in doing. It's like berating a guy for showing interest in killing his wife (but not doing it) when you killed your own wife. (Standard Alinksy tactic.)
• Reopens Hillary's actual collusion with Russia
• Reminds us that Hillary's team took a no-ethics approach to receiving any helpful information, such as when they accepted debate questions from CNN.
• Opens an investigation into why this Russian lawyer, whose social media shows routine anti-Trump material and her participation in anti-Trump events in the US, was seen associated with Democratic officials (even sitting with them in Congress) at around the same time she was supposedly collaborating to help Trump steal the election.
• Opens an inquiry into why the Obama's Justice Department allowed this Russian spy into the US without a valid visa under "extraordinary circumstances." The only circumstance here is the insane level of circumstantial evidence.
• Opens the question of how the New York Times got DJTJ's emails. Was he hacked? Did a government agency acquire them and leak them to the press, which they've been doing nonstop since before Trump even took office. Which reminds us, in case people had forgetten because of all the media distractions, Barrack Obama was wiretapping a presidential candidate, and then the president elect.

Not only does this expose each of these six incidents to public scrutiny, each far more significant than the Trump's decision to see if the lawyer really had serious dirt on Clinton corruption, but it might have actually helped us tie together the Democrats' nefarious plotline. It seems highly likely that the Russian lawyer was a honeypot set by the left so that the Obama administration could justify a FISA warrant against Trump. I posted DJTJ's emails a couple days ago, and the part from the Russian lawyer reads very much like, "I am high level Russian government lawyer with top secret information regarding Hillary Clinton and would like to visit you from Moscow to rig American capitalist election."

So there's all that, but even more significant has been the public response to this. I've still got a ton of liberals on facebook, but I didn't see much at all about the DJTJ emails. This was being billed as a smoking gun by none other than the New York Times. The left came out swinging hard and their own people kinda of balked at it. Maybe they're getting as sick of this shit as we are. Then the right responded with the obvious contradictions (like Clinton doing almost exactly what Trump didn't actually do) and all the other points listed above, and the story got dropped like a hot potato. I don't think we've seen a major fake news story die in two days like this. 

This is all they have left. You don't throw those kinds of hail mary's unless you're completely desperate and the clock is running out. Today my google news feed said nothing about what was the biggest and virtually only story in the news just two days ago. Instead, I saw something about Sessions Russia connections (lol) and a story about how the CBO says Trump's budget won't balance. They're either going back to old news that already went no where (seriously waiting to start hearing about tax returns again soon) or giving, gasp, valid and deserved criticism of Trump's policies. And in this case, one that edges on the side of being a conservative argument. Ye gods! Is the insanity over? You can bet it isn't, but the liberal attack machine has been defeated this round. They've lost the Dump Trump crusade, and paid a mighty price for the war. Now it's time to start talking about this Obama wire-tapping and Democratic election rigging.

Resist RINOs and Neocons

A group calling themselves Resist Fascism is organizing a 100-hour anti-Trump protest at the Fox News building in New York City. This is a result of the left's naive and one-dimensional view of the media landscape. They think of CNN and Washington Post and New York Times as centrist. In spite of all evidence to the contrary, such as nearly all of their campaign donations going to Democrats, their collaboration with Democrats that was revealed by the DNC leaks, and that their coverage is blatant propaganda, their media model is that the mainstream media is center, there are a few fringe token publication on the far left (there have to be, to justify the centrist label for mainstream rags) and Fox News represents conservatives, with perhaps Breitbart as the extreme right.

I've seen this in arguments with lefties when I criticize the media. If I make a point about CNN, I hear, "Well Fox News...blah blah blah." It is simply assumed that I watch Fox News, and support them, as Fox News is the other team. These simpletons have the model that you are either a CNN / Post / Times person, or you are a Fox News supporter. So they direct their liberal angst at Fox News. Good. Because frankly, fuck Fox News. They aren't ideologically conservative, and they aren't even pro-Trump. They have some very pro-Trump opinion people, like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson (the only show I would watch if I did), but they also give platforms to people like Sheppard Smith, an anti-Trump rabbit who is billed as a newscaster rather than an opinion show, and Trump's biggest rival Megyn Kelly, who left after deciding she deserved a hefty salary increase. A study from Harvard University determined that Fox News coverage of Trump was, on the whole, negative. Not 90% negative like the supposedly centrist mainstream news orgs, but still majority negative. How poetic that these liberals are holding an anti-Trump protest against an organization whom the most revered lefty academic institution has found to be mostly anti-Trump. I can only imagine their protest slogans.

What do we want?

For Fox News to stop being mostly anti-Trump, and start being fully anti-Trump.

When do we want it?

 NOW!

As described in Resolution of Ideology, if we can properly fragment and layer our ideological signal then we can actually get lefties to do some of our legwork for us. Fox News is, at best, watered-down conservatism and, at worst, moderate liberalism wearing a conservative mask. We want them attacked. No safe quarter for halflings! Protesting them will put pressure for Fox to either appease the lefties (thus revealing their true nature) or to reject them fully and lurch towards the right. The more aggressive and deranged the lefties protest the moderates, the more likely they are to come to our side. I noticed throughout the election cycle that newcomers to r/the_donald were more likely to make the move because of disgust with liberal behavior than from ideological considerations. Our approach to these protests should be to trick them into thinking we oppose these protests, as well as doing anything possible to annoy them so to maximize their vicious and childish public behavior against moderates.

Now take a moment and try to picture what the spokeswoman for this lefty political action group would look like. I'll gives some white space to not give it away.
















Here is Sunsara Taylor, the spokesperson for Resist Fascism.

A surprising lack of the sort of "I'm a leftist" signaling we'd expect out of a visible member of that community. Purple hair, nose piercings, gaudy tattoos, massively thick-rimmed concern glasses, and overt displays of non-femininity (manly features & stylings, poor hygeine, fat & proud, etc.) are all missing. She's fairly attractive, for a lefty at least, and at first glance you might even mistake her for one of us. Except I had to really work to get that still, where she's displaying relatively pleasant body language. The following is her more typical expression in that video.

There can be no doubt that is an agitated and angry person. The scowled brow, flared nostrils, and the calling card of the triggered liberal, that furled upper lip. Look familiar?

Even the spokesperson for the group, while on camera being interviewed by a friendly news outlet, can't restrain the raging emotions underneath. This isn't an ideological battle. It's group therapy for some very deranged people. There's nothing we can do about all the crazy people, so we should try to make them work as best as possible for us. I can think of no better use for them than to go out on the streets acting crazy while proclaiming their liberal values and attacking mainstream fake conservatives. Gee, I hope they don't firebomb the National Review. *wink, wink*

Trump-Russia Interactions

The big news story today is that some emails leaked to the media show that Don Trump Jr, as well as Kushner and Manafort, met with a Russian government lawyer claiming to have damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Junior tweeted the email chain out, probably to get ahead of it before the media published it.

Are they damaging? They sure seem to be. They substantiate the narrative that the Russian government supported the Trump candidacy and that there was at least the intention of some indirect collaboration between members of Trump's team and Russian government employees. There is nothing illegal here, but there are certainly ethics questions.

The defense coming from Trump's fan base at r/the_donald is that it's perfectly reasonable for Trump's campaign to have accepted the offer of information relevant to the campaign if it doesn't violate the law. The left, on the other hand, see this as smoking-gun proof of treason. There's a problem with both sides of the issue: Hillary Clinton did something very similar when she accepted CNN debate question during the Democrat primary (amongst other things). So while the case might be made that meeting a Russian lawyer to receive controversial information is condemnable conduct, it cannot be made by anyone who supported Clinton when we knew full well from the DNC leaks what she was up to.

In the same manner, Trump supporters who cried foul at Hillary quietly accepting and using the debate questions must do the same regarding the willingness of Trump's team to accept and, had it actually been provided, use information provided by a foreign government agent that would damage a political adversary. Either Clinton and Trump's teams both engaged in unacceptable behavior, or neither did.

I would suggest that Trump supporters call out the recently revealed actions as unethical. We don't believe political candidates should be fed information from foreign governments. However, ultimately the actions are probably defensible on the grounds of When They Go Low, We Go Low. That is, given that Clinton was herself receiving information from foreign entities (such as Ukraine), and receiving information from the media that shouldn't have been receiving, let alone the tens of millions of dollars she was receiving from foreign governments indirectly through the Clinton Foundation, she opened the tactic for fair use by all parties. Bombing Japan is unethical. Bombing Japan after they bomb Pearl Harbor is fair game.

The concern here is that liberals are being hypocritical by condemning Trump but not Clinton, and we risk falling into the same mindless partisanship. We need to be very clear about how Team Trump's actions were unethical, yet how they were probably justified in the context of the behavior of his opponent. I have to say also that it probably wasn't wise for the team to accept the meeting in the first place. What good would dirt on Clinton have done? There's dirt on her a mile deep; her supporters don't care. One wonders how Manafort, a seasoned political operative, was naive enough to fall for all this. Also, how will Trump respond? In a fair world, he would admit the mistake, apologize, and possibly even fire Kushner over his role in the event. In the real world, however, apologies are taken as confessions by the left and firings chum the water. No one's getting impeached or fired over this. Conservatives need to pressure Trump on the issue, while also reminding everyone about Clinton's worse transgressions, and it'll all blow over eventually. In fact, the major outcome of all this will be to further enrage and frustrate liberals. That is certainly a silver lining.

2 + 2 = 5

William Briggs wonders if the liberal elite aren't intentionally coercing the population to recite absurdities as a method of mind control. From his recent post Why Are Elites Making Us Say Men Are Women?:

What most don’t grasp is that the elites, most of whom are not men pretending to be married to one another, want you to lie. They do this to show who is in charge. Once everybody accepts the lie about gmarriage, the elites will push on to new territory, as they are doing with men pretending to be women. And after that fiction is commonplace, some new outrage against Truth will take its place, and so on, until the populace it pliant and cowed.

For Heaven’s sake, did anybody not read 1984? What the purpose of torturing Winston to say 2 + 2 = 5? That the Party really believed that mathematical fiction? No! It was to subjugate and for no other reason.

The deliberate approach to forcing party members to believe blatant falsehoods was personified by O'Brien, whose task was to coerce Winston to believe, not just to recite, but to believe the party dogma. Even though Winston's rebellious actions had more than earned him the death penalty, he was kept alive anyway because it was vital to the state that no party member could successfully resist. [On a side note, wouldn't the novel have been very awkward if Winston had committed suicide? It seems there might be room for some fan fiction there: Winston commits suicide and it triggers the downfall of Big Brother.]

Certainly the left want us to recite a slew of absurdities. Do they require that we believe them as well? Recall from the post Religions, Cults, and the Alt Right that the major difference between a religion and a cult is that the religion requires its members to profess logically improbable beliefs for social acceptance, whereas a cult demands purity of belief. Thus, Big Brother is the epitome of a cult, as its primary mission is that all party members fully believe the government propaganda. (But not the commoners; no one cares what they think.) And yet we have O'Brien, the representative of the inner party, who must understand that the party line is bogus by insisting that Winston first believe 4 + 4 = 5, and obvious falsehood, on his way to believing in the party. But how can that be? If the point of the cult is that all members must believe, is it likely that the core of the group doesn't actually believe?

I wager that it's not likely at all. It's certainly possible that a cabal of sociopaths would engineer such a cult, but not that it would maintain itself for very long. I don't think most of the liberal elites are comparable to O'Brien. They might not purely believe the dogma, but they're at least able to convince themselves that they do. Certainly there are sociopaths in the group that are aware they are playing pretend. Hillary Clinton will pretend to believe anything she needs to believe to be in good standing with the most powerful cabal. But generally the intellectual and elite core of the left probably believe in liberalism. Think of people like Saul Alinksy or George Soros. It doesn't seem likely that they've gone to such extremes just to accumulate petty power. Sure, that's probably the subconcious drive, but it's hard to believe that Soros would be orchestrating an open-borders, global communism movement if he didn't truly believe that it was best for the world. In literature the best villains are the ones who we can empathize with, or at least understand. The only other explanation for his actions, rather than him being a cunning but misguided dreamer, is that Christian dogma is accurate and Soros is literally possessed by the demonic powers of Satan.

UPDATE:
Rather timely, this showed up on my Reddit feed today.

The relevant quote is:

Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

Ultimately it doesn't matter whether or not the promoters of liberal nonsense actually believe it. Do we care whether the drug dealer peddling to kids is hooked on the smack himself? No, we don't. We hold him accountable either way. Do we care if adherents to dangerous religions, like radical Islam, actually believe the dogma? No, we are left to deal with them no matter what their level of personal fervor is. Ultimately this post is kind of worthless. Who cares what they really think? The effect of the lies is the same either way, and is no different than any other malignant religion.