What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Wackadoodle theories, the election, and the death of the republic

Herewith more scarcely-edited musings:

It should go without saying that election fraud is a bad thing and should be prosecuted, even if it doesn't change the result of the election. Suppose (which doesn't seem unreasonable) that the election fraud that has occurred this time around hasn't changed the outcome. Nonetheless, if it goes unprosecuted it may change the result in another year with a closer contest. Emboldened, bad actors will do even more.

The enablement by the media has been absolutely appalling and blatantly partisan. Bullying whistleblowers (such as the postal worker) and demonizing everyone who takes allegations seriously, together with an unspoken but all-too-real political double standard, sends a message.

And if we aren't fooling ourselves, we all know what that message is: One side of the political aisle could easily get away with even more election fraud later, and the complaints about it and evidence of it would be censored, ignored, dismissed, and even suppressed by the very forces of law (e.g., the federal agents who bullied the postal worker) who are supposed to be investigating them.

Of course, needless to say, if voting fraud were alleged with anything close to similar plausibility on the other side of the political aisle (that is, by Republicans) it would be pursued with Javert-like ferocity. There would be riots just on the basis of the allegations alone, and a failure to prosecute and convict the targets of the allegations would result in more riots.(Can you imagine what would have happened if Democrat-heavy districts had the sort of "irregularities" that have occurred in Republican-heavy districts? Let's not be fools.) Meanwhile, the media would incessantly trumpet any allegations of Republican voting fraud with the same assiduity with which it suppresses, censors, and mocks allegations of Democrat voting fraud. All of this all aware, honest men know.

And this means that our republic is in big trouble. Because even if it didn't swing the election this time (as it probably didn't), the felonious undermining of our political process will only get worse with this sort of one-sidedness and failure to get to the bottom of real problems this time.

Moreover, ordinary men on the right know that they are being gaslighted, censored, and bullied, and they are rightly sickened by it. This merely makes them more willing to accept exaggerated claims, some of which are probably false.

I've also really recognized just in the last few weeks that over-the-top statements that I know to be false taken literally sometimes are just exaggerated ways of saying things that I actually agree with. For example, I'd never say, "The pandemic is a hoax." But I now realize that some people who say that mean by it something that I would say differently. E.g. "The pandemic is greatly overblown, and the response to it is vastly disproportionate and doing more harm than good."

Perhaps just as common, or more so, are cases where people really do believe false things, but they believe them because there is a lot of smoke, and therefore they understandably suspect fire, and because they know that the media and big tech companies and others are working overtime to dismiss and suppress legitimate concerns. This is part of why they end up believing that the presidential election really was stolen for Biden and much crazier things than that, which I will leave to your imagination and/or your memories of yesterday's e-mails and private messages from more conspiracy-minded friends.

A more reasonable pundit, business, and governing class who (being more reasonable) knew not to act like a bunch of partisan hacks, phobic madmen, economic idiots, or gibbering totalitarian tyrants might have been able to prevent at least to some extent the rise of wacky theories "on the right" by retaining a few shreds of public trust in the first place. Instead, having quite understandably lost that trust, the only thing these idiots can think of doing to "control the spread of disinformation" is to use ever-more-ham-fisted tactics of suppression while engaging in never-ending condescending whining that lumps truly wackadoodle conspiracy theories together with legitimate grievances and credible allegations.

Meanwhile, the self-styled "moderates" and "apolitical" commenters end up looking like mere enablers of tyranny and universal attempted gaslighting when they parrot what sound for all the world like leftist talking points and call it "fact checking" and "helping Christian conservatives not to spread misinformation." Hint: That isn't helping.

Yeah, I know, I know. This makes it sound like I'm putting myself forward as one of the only really balanced people out there. I get how that sounds arrogant. But all of this is mostly to say: In a crazy world where the people in charge do outrageous things that would have been unimaginable even a year ago, don't be so danged quick to despise people who believe in still more outrageous things. And don't be so danged quick, either, to disbelieve some things that all of your allegedly more intelligent and elite friends are pooh-poohing. And also: If you now believe something that would have probably shocked you a year ago (like, I dunno, "It's our duty not to meet in churches for an indefinite time period," or "The government has the right and responsibility to lock up whole classes of legitimate businesses for months on end and make everybody wear a mask in public"), don't go around virtue signaling as though only an idiot would still refuse to believe that.

Try to have a little sympathy with the supposed "wackos" on the right. They might just be right sometimes.

Comments (6)

Gaslighting? What gaslighting? We never insinuated, with the 1619 Project, that 1619 was the real racist founding of America. Perish the thought. Nevermind what we published (and then silently changed), nevermind we used imagery of 1776 marked out with 1619 written above it on a certain person's Twitter account. You're imaging things. And you're racist.

While we're talking about what might seem to be far-fetched theories, here (from this summer) is the CDC itself talking about "relocating" elderly people to "green zones" to isolate them from their families and from younger people. To protect them. No clear mention of how this will be accomplished and whether it will be forced, except for the following rather ominous quotation:

"While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings."

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.html

Well, because it isn't really coercive if we force you to do it for your own good, ya know. (Our superior understanding of your own good being determinative, naturally.) Force isn't "coercive" when it's us wielding the force.

Besides, "may appear forced", but isn't REALLY forced. You just don't know how to correctly interpret the screams, sobbing, hands clenched on doorposts, etc. These are signs of people overjoyed at being sent to the gulag.

Tony, Tony, not wanting to be isolated from your family is a CLEAR sign of dementia, so of course we must honour what these people would "really" choose if they were rational by dragging them away in chains. To honour their actual choices as opposed to the ones I imagine they would make would be to enslave them to their dementia.

And you know, if they don't like living in our life-saving camps, well, we can always give them euthanasia to any who ask for it, or who we think would ask for it if they were free like us.

And I know what will be said about it: "This is being taken out of context, because the CDC was only talking about humanitarian situations like refugee camps and such."

Several problems with that:

1) So, you're a refugee family that has escaped from a tsunami and is now at the mercy of humanitarian workers in a refugee camp. Is it really so okay that they remove Grandma, who is already disoriented due to all that she's been through on top of her age, from the only familiar people she has left, to put her in a "green zone" in the refugee camp? Just because she's elderly? So even if this *were* implemented only in refugee camps set up for other disasters, it would still be inhumane.

2) The page and one of the papers they link also refers to low-income areas and urban slums as places to do this. So I guess if you're poor you're considered a legit target for this type of thing even if you're not in an independently set-up refugee camp.

3) Though more far-fetched, it isn't entirely beyond the realm of possibility (especially now when things are crazier than ever) that there could be humanitarian camps set up *for* housing people because of Covid, and presumably this sort of segregation would take place there rather than housing those people in family or household units as much as possible. There was a brief kerfuffle in the summer when Governor DeWine of Ohio was asking for money to set up FEMA disaster camps in his state to house people who "needed" to quarantine or isolate and allegedly didn't have adequate facilities for doing so in their own home. At the time he was asked quite a few questions by news personnel about how those decisions would be made, whether it would be voluntary or not, and the like, and he dodged them. As far as I know, those FEMA camps in Ohio were not set up and used but were merely an idea he was floating. Cynically, I suspect he was just thinking about ways to get federal money and wasn't really planning to be a scary totalitarian about it. But it was more than a little creepy nonetheless, especially since he apparently had no clearly Constitutional plan for deciding who had to go there.

he apparently had no clearly Constitutional plan for deciding who had to go there

The Constitution means exactly what he chooses it to mean, neither more nor less. The question is, who is to be master, that's all, said Humpty Dumpty.

These all fits and starts are basically early trial runs for future planning purposes.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.