The Certainty of the Sheep

This wasn’t the post I was going to write this morning. Though I only had an hazy idea of the post I was going to write.

Then I wrote my weekly post at Mad Genius Club.

(I normally do them at night, but last night I was madly securing my various accounts, since the flaming crazy attempted to break in again. Btw, it must be sad. Because it stopped to send nasty emails that s/h/it thought would get me in trouble, it was five minutes too late on the attempt to download all my emails. So, those of you undercover who email me, your secret is safe, and now the entire thing is triple locked. To be fair it was tightly locked before, but one of the things we found is that this has been going on for at least a month and probably for months, which uh…. makes me reach for pants and suspenders. Now there is a higher chance I’ll accidentally lock myself out of my own account and never be able to get in again than actually get hacked.)

Anyway, so I did my post at Mad Genius Club, partly in frustration because as far as writing yesterday was a day the locusts ate.

And I had a hazy idea of writing about how you are your house’s keeper, but it’s not a part of you. I don’t even know if it’s a problem for most American women my generation, honest. I come from another century, in a way, as well as from another country.

But then I went to MeWe to share the MGC post, and there was a post echoing the CDC’s bafflement about why states and counties with no mask mandates have falling cases, while those with the strictest Branch Covidian adherence have the highest.

And someone posted in the comments “How come they never consider they might be wrong? Never reevaluate?”

And I realized this is true, and not just for measures against the highly over-hyped Chinese Lung Rot. They never stop, never reconsider, never examine what they’ve done and the results, and go “Is there another way to achieve this end?”

In fact, instead of revising the failed theory, Marxists keep concocting elaborate explanations for why it’s still true, it’s just been done wrong or with the wrong people (Like the Gramscian substitution of race for class) which is the antithesis of Occam’s Razor.

And pretty funny since — since Marx, who wouldn’t know science if it bit him in the fleshy part of his grifter ass — they call their theories of governance “scientific” which is kind of like calling a pig an eagle. It don’t change nothing and it annoys everyone who hears it.

So I thought deeper into it, and I realized they don’t reevaluate because they can’t.

Part of this is that for a century now, the left has “reproduced” via schools. They, by and large, don’t have kids, but they get to indoctrinate other people’s kids.

And part is that, leftism being a social signal of sorts, and a sign of being “part of the good people” plus a way to get material goods (no? Look at who gets paid for expertise on guns on TV. It ain’t our own Larry Correia. Not most of the time.) a lot of the left self-indoctrinated as adults.

Mind you these people are usually pretty broken and willing to do ANYTHING to belong to the in group (as opposed to the rest of us who are pretty broken, but hoist middle fingers HIGH at pressure to conform.) They refer to the process of self-remodeling into perfect Marxian bots as “mind killing” but don’t see anything wrong with it.

Point being, it is actually mind killing. It is killing the part of themselves that can reevaluate and re-chart.

Look, I started out pretty lefty — yeah. I know. anti-communist, but you know, I grew up in Europe. So much of this sh*t like say gun control is absorbed when you’re too young to even think — but have changed my mind, as facts didn’t fit. I kind of careened into extreme Libertarianism for a while, and now I’m … I don’t know there probably isn’t a name. Except that the skies and the stars shall pass away before a single comma is rendered irrelevant or inapplicable in the US Constitution (except should it be LAWFULLY amended or revised and even then I reserve the right to giggle at bullshit like the prohibition. Yes, like all works of men the Constitution is flawed, but it’s still the best thing our species has come up with.)

I changed my mind about Trump, something the other never Trumpers don’t seem able to do. Oh, and weirdly after weeks of debating gun control in the first year of my marriage, both Dan and I changed our minds from “sensible control” (pfui) to “Shall not be infringed, biatches.” Which is weird, since we were both on the other side, but we did a deep dive into facts and…. well….

Actually, that’s the main thing. When something doesn’t fit my theories, I dive into facts, sometimes for years, and either change my mind (sometimes drastically) or figure out why it’s not working the way I thought (and sometimes it’s “because foreign people are buying the buildings in the city that should be losing value. Also, New Yorkers, who aren’t foreign but are crazy, particularly in the matter of real estate value.”)

So why doesn’t the left do it? Oh, they change positions, sometimes, but they change it from the top, and then claim they never held the other opinion. Like, on gay marriage, or the first amendment, or wars abroad, or…..

The word comes from on high, and then all of them repeat it, as though it had always been thus. And none of them seem to notice this.

I think I figured out how they get like that, but I don’t know how to break it.

Part of it is indoctrination. Some of it very young. To this day, if I drop bread on the floor, I pick it up and apologize (though I don’t know how to bless it) which makes no sense whatsoever, since bread isn’t sentient. But I was taught before I could read that dropping bread on the floor is evil and you must pick it up, apologize and bless it. No amount of rational thought stops that. And not doing it makes me so profoundly uncomfortable it’s easier to just do it.

So, a lot of the left is trained, not in any particularly principles, but to belong to the left. Which involves repeating what comes from above, unthinkingly.

And part of it? Part of it, they’re so terrified of being cast out of the in group, or perhaps of a sort of demonic possession (keep in mind they believe the straw picture of “evil right wingers” and think if they’re not on the left, then they will become evil right wingers) that they can’t allow themselves to think.

We’ve seen both of these with cults.

The question is, how do you deprogram a few million people?

How do you get them to listen to Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

Because how high the butcher’s bill goes, and how much is destroyed depends on that.

And I don’t have an answer.

860 thoughts on “The Certainty of the Sheep

    1. Addendum: and do research. How are cults deprogrammed?

      How much of this behavior stems from programming?

      How do we distinguish choice from brainwashing?

      I think this also speaks to how much of us is meat computer, and how much is actual self-determination?

      1. How were the Hitler Youth, etc. handled?

        The really young and not yet indoctrinated were likely of not great issue.
        Those old enough to be cynical and fake it (though ‘fake it’ too long and a sort of hypnosis can take hold) were likely no great issue either.
        Those in-between? There’s a story that might well have been told, but I have not heard/read.

        1. State had ‘taken’ children away from their families in the first place.

          So, after the war, when the very young Hitler Jugend and Deutsch Madchen Bunde members were among those few inexperienced enough to be die hard fanatics in the Wehrwolves?

          Handed them back to the parents with instructions to keep them.

          I can tell you, home psychiatric nursing is /hard/.

          If Americans were really equipped to safely care for that subset at home, we probably would not be in this mess.

        2. I met one of those adults that had been a Hitler Youth and came to the US. He was paranoid of everything to do with the State. He fenced his property and walked the grounds with a gun. He ended up being shot in the head when he picked up his mail at the end of his road. Yes, he was a polygamist at the time. No, he shouldn’t have died because of it. But that’s what happens when some one is indoctrinated so early and they cannot get over the chism. Paranoid is the least of it.

          1. > cannot get over the chism.

            I didn’t know that word, so I webbed it. The only hit I got other than as a surname was from Urban Dictionary. And… I don’t think that’s the meaning you intended.

        3. In my observation, the “true believers” seldom actually believe, but they get a HIGH from acting as if they believe, and from acting on that belief. So the guy who blows up a dairy barn may lip-service “animal rights” but he sure did get a thrill from watching the barn burn up. (Basis: reading stuff written by the type.)

          1. Secondary evidence, the number of really horrific “animal abuse” evidence videos that are proven to be “animal rights” folks doing the horrific things they claim agriculture folks do, to manufacture evidence.

            Do not read
            if you
            are easily upset by meaningless, horrific death
            Do not read
            if you
            are easily upset by meaningless, horrific death
            Do not read
            if you
            are easily upset by meaningless, horrific death
            Do not read
            if you
            are easily upset by meaningless, horrific death

            Like throwing live chicks into the grinder meant for the scrapings from the chicken pens, which sometimes– because chickens are GROSS– included some chunks of dead chicks.

            I know, theoretically, that death by being ground to death is probably less bad than pecked to death, and thus theoretically better than the radical “Free range” options.
            But deliberately killing baby animals in a horrific, meaningless way is just… just… evil.
            Even before lookign at the whole “to promote my desired outcome.”

            1. Being thoroughly familiar (as one whose formerly-honorable profession has been vilified and mostly destroyed by the AR types and their useful idiots) … exactly so. There are no means so horrific that they can’t justify using ’em toward their ends.

              Or why when the Red Left says that they want us dead as the means to achieve their ends, I take them at their word.

            2. Why would farmers deliberately kill their livestock? Today’s chicks are tomorrow’s productive poultry. Even as propaganda, it makes no sense.

              1. Egg ranches kill the male chicks, which in the egg business are useless eaters and have no value to a meat grower (not being meat breeds). But they’re not ground alive; they’re gassed with CO2 and killed first.

                Tho I just saw something about a new method to sex chicks before they’re hatched.

                1. A friend of my son makes an extremely nice living from those dead chicks. He picks them up daily and freezes them. He then sells them to zoos as reptile food. Huge market.

                2. I don’t know how common that is– I grew up with us buying the egg-roosters for dirt cheap and butchering them at home. The year we got 105 and only two of the f’ers died (as my mother phrases it every time, and yes she says “eff-ers”) is still a topic of family conversation.

                  They’re not as good of a ROI for feed as meat chickens, but they’re quite edible, and well suited to the “buy in the spring, slaughter in the fall” setup, so you can let them forage.

                  If allowed, bet that it’s used in pet food.

                    1. Looking at the most common egg laying breeds, they were probably Rhode Island reds and white leghorns, which are noted for being laid back although the leghorns are extremely intelligent. (And NOISY) Biggest selling point is they forage most of their food, you feed at night to get them back in the coop.

                      Never had more of a problem with almost all male than any other chicken flock, the pecking order was more of an issue than dominance issues.

                      Hm, they still did open cockfighting when you were a kid, didn’t they? I bet that makes for a much different temperament selection process than “this bird is nasty, to the stewpot.” (See also, Angus bulls)

                    2. Depends. For some years I had descendants of fighting cocks (culls from a flock raised for the trade in Mexico), a random dozen or so hens and roosters all raised together, that did no more than the occasional spat to settle rank (the hens were worse than the roosters), and otherwise flocked together. The last two survivors were both roosters and total buddies.

                      And yes, every edible part of culled chickens winds up in zoo or pet food. “ANF” brand dog food (one of the first to be chicken-based) started life as the surplus from a mink food factory that processed aged-out laying hens. (And the feathers go into slow-release fertilizer, and sometimes chicken feed.)

        4. Ask any modern escapee from Red China. My husband has made an avocation of this. TL’DR: They get away from the hive for long enough for normal human relationships to be perceived. Then… Something happens.

          A miracle?

          1. Yes.

            Love. Of the “Faith, hope and love are some good things He gave us” sort.

            They’re safe enough, and have the emotional permission, to think.

          2. Ask any modern escapee from North Korea.

            There is a level of abuse beyond which the victim is close enough to permabroken as makes no difference. They can learn to function well enough to have a life and make it worth having escaped, but the brand on their psyche remains.

            1. Broken, yes– but the metaphor of kintsukuroi can help there, too.
              “Mending with gold”– obviously works best with a philosophy that has a greater power which provides the mending, but even just encouraging the inner view of “yes, broken, but repaired with something even better” can help with function, especially when they can test it and find it true.

            2. Hell. Much lighter socialist hells leave their brand. I’m still fighting free 35 years later, though admittedly my time in the publishing industry dind’t help.

      2. Remember, “deprogramming,” when it’s done to remove things the left approves of, is evil, bigoted and probably inspired by religious fanaticism. (It also may or may not be effective; I’m thinking of efforts to change “deprogram” things like sexual preference).
        As though they’ve been inoculated against being changed.

        1. As I said, it speaks to the boundary between meat machine and self-determination.

          If people are not more than simple input/output devices, then the answer is to find the keys to program everyone how we like, and have our own version of the CTR-ALT-DEL War to see which codemoneky ends up owning the most bodies.

          That could be the way it really goes, but we do need to understand if that really is all people are.

                    1. And that is where you and I diverge. Yes, HE died for them so that they don’t have to pay the full price… but everything has a price and they will not be unscathed. IMHO they will either lose bits of their souls or their souls will be too heavy to rise … to HIM.

                    2. >>Yes, HE died for them so that they don’t have to pay the full price… but everything has a price and they will not be unscathed. IMHO they will either lose bits of their souls or their souls will be too heavy to rise … to HIM.

                      Jesus paid the full price, every penny. I am so very grateful for the clear teaching of the Bible on this. As for not being unscathed, some of His sheep won’t get a reward above and beyond salvation (that whole “saved as through fire” thing). But if their souls are too heavy to rise, well, the Lord Himself is more than strong enough to lift up those the Father has placed in His hand, and nothing will snatch them away.

                    3. I think it’s father Mitch that explained it this way, to try to get folks to understand– when you’re five and break the window, your parents pay for it. The damage is still there, though, and there’s still stuff that has to be fixed, just the price is paid by someone who was totally innocent.

                  1. Yes, but He forces no one to heaven and some will still choose to slam the door in His face.

                    1. But was Cyn talking about those who say no to God when she was talking about souls too heavy to rise to God? I didn’t think so, but Cyn can of course correct me. It’s those of the scorched-earth evildoer variety who come to say, “Yes”–they are the ones we feel a desperate need to still have some sort of punishment above and beyond God’s mercy. They’ve done terrible, terrible things, after all. Shouldn’t they pay some sort of price? Why should they get off scot free?

                      Now if it turns out we ARE talking about the scorched-earth evildoer who says no, then I withdraw my earlier comment to replace it with: why would we even question that he ain’t gonna make it heaven? OF COURSE his soul is too heavy to rise to God. Or, as C.S. Lewis explained so incredibly (and sadly) in The Great Divorce: “…a damned soul is nearly nothing: it is shrunk, shut up in itself. Good beats upon the damned incessantly as sound waves beat on the ears of the deaf, but they cannot receive it. Their fists are clenched, their teeth are clenched, their eyes fast shut. First they will not, in the end they cannot, open their hands for gifts, or their mouth for food, or their eyes to see.”

        2. I just realized, we don’t actually need to deprogram any of them: we need to them the tools to enable them to question what they have been programmed with.

          That’s a very different problem. Underground debate and critical thinking rings?

            1. I’ve been thinking about one aspect of it in terms of guerilla education for a few years.

              Our educational institutions are not doing what I would desire. And partly, if you look into revising theories of human behavior to a level of reliable accuracy, we trusted them much more than we ever should have.

              The ‘theory of operation’, and attempts to adjust system behavior, looks at much too high a level, much too aggregated a scale.

              Basically, as adults, we owe the younger cohorts some attention towards one on one mentorship of specific youngsters. There’s information learned from trying for decades to obtain and carry out occupations.

              A given individual needs more than generic information about possible future paths; the generic information paints with too broad of a brush. Lots of one on one fills in the many gaps left by stuff that operates on bureaucratic scales.

              Sure, you can’t make the promises of quality that the bureaucracies make, but a varied range of information means having a filter than can cope with quality issues. And anyway, bureaucratic information lags, so what bureaucracies deliver is always of low quality when the underpinnings of conventional wisdom change.

        3. Furries. Pedos. Those guys into roots bound women.

          It would be useful to know how much is medical, how much is spiritual. But we are not going to find out now.

    2. To riff on what you mention below– we don’t. try to “deprogram” them.

      We need to figure out how to let them have the choice— the emotional permission, and safety– to deprogram themselves.

          1. Well, gamify it. There’s teams of technique for introducing hard things to novice players in small bite size chunks, to the point that, eventually, they’re sequence breaking in ways the devs never even imagined and there’s someone out there doing pixel perfect maneuvers so fine that you couldn’t write a bot that could do the same.

            1. I really like this idea. Of course, we already know culture is upstream of politics.

            2. Or some good fiction in general.

              I know George R.R. Martin gets some (well-deserved) heat for his attitudes and what seems a nihilistic approach to the fantasy genre, but ironically it was his realpolitik approach that shook me out of some liberal assumptions, particularly in how he portrayed the Dothraki and the slave states to the east. I mean sure, the westerners and the lords and knights didn’t live up to their values and their honor, but at least the HAD values and honor to live up to. Certainly they were preferable to the alternatives!

        1. Sorry Sarah, but many of them are to the point of no return. Then can’t make critical decisions based on fact because for them the dogma has overwritten the ability to reason. Its possible to get them to read truths but they will reject them.

          Look up the officual success rates in europe for ‘anti extremist’ training. By all metrics they publish its a rousing success, but look at how many of the ‘cured’ either went back to their old ways, joined Isis or carried out terror attacks…. that number to me says the program is a failure. There is a reason we put down aggressive dogs rather than trying to socialize them with children.

          I went private post college but one of my friends from then does research for the government. They used to share info with me, but I pointed out they were ditching the 80% of the data that contradicted the results they believed in and were claiming it was because those numbers must be a glitch. No matter how hard i tried I couldn’t get them to see the data showed the opposite of what they said it did.

          1. You’d think having more ‘glitches’ than data would bonk them over the head with a clue-bat…

            1. Well, there’s the technique. They won’t willingly examine contrary viewpoints… but maybe we can make it too painful not to.

          2. Rhine did that at Duke in North Carolina. It’s probably the #1 example of “selection bias” in experiments. Duke was stigmatized by that for generations, but I doubt anyone would care nowadays, considering how much collegiate research as exposed as outright fraud.

          3. Look up the officual success rates in europe for ‘anti extremist’ training.

            :Considers both Europe and the phrase ‘anti-extremist’, which can’t even be balled to describe what it’s about:

            Of course, can’t be balled to do so because the include ‘right wing extremists’ of the sort that think they should be able to fight back when threatened with beating, rape and death….

            The problem with Europe is that you can be sued for telling a relevant truth if it makes someone look bad. (For a basic starting point; given my ancestry, I’m quite willing to allow a MUCH bigger list of ‘the’ problem with Europe.)

            1. My relevant ancestry being “families which escaped Europe and then signed up for the draft to go save their asses. Twice.”

              Once I figured that math out, my grandmother’s weird hatred of “the English” made a lot more sense…..

              1. Dad was a B-17 pilot stationed in Britain. He didn’t have much use for the English, either.

                1. Yeah, her dad had been here like three years when he had to sign up to go die for the bastards who set up the situation where his mom said “you and you, go to the USA and get us there, your baby brother will NOT die of mine-lung-rot on my watch!”

              2. *cackles*

                Given how many of my relatives have been in Kilmainham/Invincibles/IRB/IRA/&c, hatred of the Saxon has been a constant until about the 50’s. And now my family fawned over the fecking royals a few years ago when Kate and wossname got fecking married.

                Jayzus. Turns me stomach it does.

                1. I will admit to a scandalous fondness for Victoria and her consort, mostly because they remind me of my grandmother.

                  YEs, the one that hated the English. (…and married a half English, half Indian, looked English guy….)

                  1. I was in college one day, poring through the stacks, when I first came across Victoria’s silver jubilee portrait. And just about dropped the book it was in.

                    I *knew* my paternal grandmother (who raised me and my two sisters after our mother died) never, ever had any clothes like that. Seriously, doppleganger. The picture still creeps me out.

        2. They do think, but their presuppositions are radically different from ours. Unless their presuppositions change, their thinking won’t change. The greatest and only lasting change in their presuppositions and thus their thinking can only come from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

          1. Sorry, no. Look, just no.
            You can preach at them till you’re blue in the face. That’s pre-rejected. They might come to it AFTER reality bites, but not before.

            1. Without a change in their most fundamental beliefs you will attempt to reason with them and change their thinking in vain. The gospel is always pre-rejected by men–because all men are sinners, rebels against God. But…

              Heb 4:12 ISV For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul and spirit, joints and marrow, as it judges the thoughts and purposes of the heart.

            2. I see this discussion as looking for ways to treat our fellow humans to break them out of false ideologies and plain irrational thinking.
              two thoughts. 1) There are no contradictions. If you observe one, you must check your premises as one (or more) are wrong.
              2) Observed reality does not allow for LONG term cognitive dissonance.
              Therefore we need to devise ways to force the cognitive dissonance to the point that their minds can no longer deny the issue. It is then that we can help them see which of their premises are false.

              No easy task and will take confrontation over a period of time. Question everything, engage as many as possible with simple questions at those fault lines. We can do this as an act of compassion for our fellow citizens. Or we can assume they are lost forever with no hope. There are times I feel the latter but I am resolved to work to the former as their souls are worthy, and though they may profess to hate this country they are still citizens within it I cannot risk evil taking over my heart. Too easy and even tempting.

          2. They don’t think. What they call thought is just a fetid pile of logical fallacies, unwarranted assumptions, and inchoate emoting.

            1. “The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. It isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. It’s that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.” Thomas Sowell.

              They can’t think. And they don’t even know that they can’t think because they believe their “feels” are what “thinking” is.

            2. Again, they operate based on their presuppositions: we all do. Our presuppositions are the most fundamental beliefs we have–the ones by which we evaluate all other information. They do not change unless something majorly calls our presuppositions into question. Effectively attack the presuppositions and you can change the thinking. Don’t effectively attack the presuppositions and everything you say and do confirms the presuppositions.

              1. The entire point of reason and the scientific method is to ensure that we aren’t held hostage to our presuppositions. It forces us to compare our presuppositions to reality and discard anything that doesn’t conform.

                1. I think you’re misunderstanding the meaning of presuppositions in this context. Your use of reason and scientific method is an example of a presupposition. Your fundamental belief (presupposition) is that reason (however defined) and the scientific method are the premier methodology to evaluate options. It would be very difficult to knock you off of this belief because it is a filter you use to evaluate other beliefs. This is not related to its efficacy and conformance to reality. It is because it is your primary metric to use for evaluation.

                  Suppose my primary metric for evaluation is emotional. Your use of logic and scientific method is highly likely to provoke a negative emotion in me. Just as my use of emotion will produce a negative emotion in you. Both of us will be reinforced in our presuppositions rather than converted.

                  The key is to enter into the other person’s presuppositions and show that those presuppositions are self-contradictory in the context–that the use of them causes a violation of both reality and the person’s other core values.

                  For instance, maybe you insist on using reason and the scientific method to console your wife on the loss of her sister: honey, everyone dies sometime, studies show that at our age it is 33% likely that in any 2 siblings, one has died, etc.

                  This use of reason would utterly fail in that context. Your wifes core value in that situation is emotional and you would need to approach it from within that…even if her response to the death of her sister was completely irrational.

                  A large portion if people today approach issues from emotional core values. You have to approach them in that context and show that doing that will lead them to conflicting emotions. Then show them that there is a better way to evaluate (new presupposition ) and then that will lead to different thinking.

                  1. “Your fundamental belief (presupposition) is that reason (however defined) and the scientific method are the premier methodology to evaluate options.”

                    No. The ideas that reason preserves truth values and that the scientific method develops ideas that are congruent with reality aren’t beliefs, they’re the defining characteristics of the ideas. If an operation doesn’t preserve truth values it isn’t reason, it’s a fallacy. If an idea cannot be determined to conform to reality it isn’t scientific.

                    As for the idea that preserving truth values and conforming to reality are both good, that also isn’t a presupposition. That’s a deduction based on observed facts.

                    1. Jeff, you’re proving my point: you value these things and use them to evaluate everything else. Yet they aren’t universally applicable in every situation.

                      Liberals/progressives/leftists have different fundamental values than you and they reason from those values, just as you reason from yours. Their different starting point leads them to a different destination. You have to destroy their fundamental beliefs by using their fundamental beliefs against them and then show them a better way. Otherwise they’ll just become nihilists. If you approach convincing them from your fundamental values, you will confirm them, not dissuade them.

                    2. You’ve got it backwards. I don’t base my evaluations on their value, I base my value on their evaluation. Their fundamental values contradict reality and usually each other.

                    3. Jeff, I’m agreeing that their values contradict reality and ultimately each other. You have to approach them from within their system in order to successfully attack them. If you approach them from within your system, they will reject it.

                      In today’s context this is quite difficult, because you have a nasty concoction of people rejecting objective truth and reason and substituting emotional highs as the primary metric of evaluation. “If it feels good, do it.” “That’s your truth not mine.”

                      How do you persuade such a person? Suppose they say that the Holocaust didn’t really happen, but even if it did that it wasn’t objectively immoral to slaughter millions of people? They’ll agree it was immoral to you and it was immoral from the perspective of the Jews, but that they can’t agree that it was immoral to the nazis. You can show them documents of it, perhaps at this late date bring eyewitnesses to them. But they just respond that documents can be faked and eyewitnesses are unreliable at best.

                      You say killing people because of race, nationality, or religion is immoral. They say that it’s your same suspect documents that put that as the motive, so no dice. But, they go on, if the nazis really believed what they said, then for them it was not immoral.

                      You and they could dance this circle again and again.

                      The real question is why they want to hold to moral relativism and no objective truth. What more fundamental value drives them to these two values? And how do you use that fundamental value to show them the bankruptcy of their worldview.

                    4. Well, I’d agree with them that the Nazis didn’t consider the Holocaust immoral. That’s why we had to kill so many of them and reeducate the rest.

                      As for the Holocaust never happening, not only is there documentary evidence, there’s physical evidence, and testimonial evidence. The first two might be fakable, but you can’t manufacture millions of eyewitnesses. Anyone who denies all of that simply cannot have a useful opinion. On anything, they may have a correct opinion but their thought process is so flawed that they could only come by that opinion by accident. Since there are many more wrong opinions than right ones, I wouldn’t listen to them or recommend them for a position of trust or authority.

                    5. But the people in my example would state that most of your eyewitnesses are only seen on film or videotape because that generation is very rapidly dying off. They could also point again to the unreliability of eyewitnesses.

                      You don’t have to convince me of the superiority of objective truth and logical reasoning to arrive at sound conclusions. You have to convince people who believe neither, but rather the opposite: no absolute truth and no logic…or at least they claim.

                      The original question in the article/comments is how to get them to think, or rather how to convince them to think like we do. My contention is that all of us think from our most fundamental values as a foundation, reasoning from them to conclusions. Their fundamental values are quite different from mine, almost alien in fact. So alien that communication is very difficult. But not impossible, because we are all made in the image of God and that is the touchstone. The highest authority in their worldview is their god and they pretty fanatically serve that god with heart, soul, mind, and strength. Their faith in that idol must be shattered and then replaced. And that is supernatural in origin.

                      1Co 1:17-21 KJV 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

                    6. It doesn’t matter that they’re only seen on film, there are so many of them on film that it would be nearly impossible to fake. Nowadays a denier might claim deepfakes generated by a computer, but there are too many people alive today who say the video evidence long before deepfakes were possible.

                      Fundamental values may be how many people start their thought process, but it doesn’t have to be that way. For example, Euclid famously laid out 5 postulates as the basis of his geometry, but they aren’t simple assertions. 4 of them can be proven by assuming they’re false and then demonstrating that the resulting system contradicts itself. The last one, that there is only one line parallel to a given line, can’t be proven that way since you can create self-consistent geometries where there are an infinite number of parallel lines and where there are potentially no parallel lines.

                    7. The people in the example would ask you for a detailed list of persons and accounts that you heard and proof of their veracity. Many people were eyewitnesses to the death of George Floyd and the role of Derek Chauvin in it, yet the defense has raised reasonable doubt to whether his knee was on the neck, whether the actions taken were against MPD training, and showed evidence that a drug overdose and poor heart health were the cause of asphyxiation.

                      As far as Euclid, he began with the assumption that geometry was subject to logical reasoning, that there were regularities that could be exploited, that it was not irreducibly complex and thus could be explained by a finite number of axioms/principles, that his sensory input conformed to reality and was reliable, etc. He reasoned from these beliefs to formulate and draw his conclusions and develop his postulates. He also no doubt had other beliefs that motivated him to undertake the effort, e.g., that understanding geometry would give him secret knowledge into the working of the gods and the universe, or that would honor the gods. Certainly he thought that understanding geometry would be highly beneficial to him in some way and so made the decision to embark on the quest and perservere. In that he had to weigh the value of his time and effort vs doing something else. Which he evaluated based on his fundamental values. What were those? I have no idea. Could have been any number of things from curiosity to winning a bet to a desire for fame to religious in nature, etc. But he decided that geometric understanding was both feasible and worthwhile to pursue.

                    8. To which the proper response is that they’re engaging in the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. The subject at hand is the evidence in support of their position. Since they’re the ones claiming that I need to change my position they need to provide logically sound evidence to support that claim.

                      To say eyewitnesses saw Chauvin’s role in Floyd’s death is to beg the question. If Floyd died of a Fentanyl overdose, as seems likely, then Chauvin had no role in his death.

                      And as for Euclid, reasons for acting aren’t the same as the presuppositions underlying that action. Furthermore, the reason we know about Euclid is that his work is incredibly useful in the real world (indeed, at best Euclid was expanding on work that had been going on for thousands of years to solve real world problems, there’s a chance that he just plagiarized the whole thing).

                    9. In all this you’re either missing the point or deliberately ignoring it. Leftists do what they do because their fundamental values and beliefs shape how they view every event or issue. If you want to change how they view the issues, you have to change their fundamental values and beliefs. That is difficult to do because those are the lens by which they see the world. Your are too. It’s analogous to telling someone you’re going to remove their eyes and give them something better. This is what happens to many kids when they go off to college: the professors say your eyes are faulty, you’re basically blind, I’m going to give you new ones that will enable you to see things you’ve never seen before. The kids respect and are overawed by the professors, who are quite practised at this kind of peresuasion, and accede to the “surgery”. And it’s amazing, they now do see evil dragons everywhere. Anyone who tries to persuade them otherwise is now seen for what they really are, an evil dragon attacking them. Attacks from outside the system reinforce what they think.

                      You have to attack from within the system, which is what the professors did in the first place. They used the students values to subvert how the students viewed the world.

                      In order to convert them to a new way of thinking, you have to do the same thing. Use their current values to change how they view the world.

                      Most leftists aren’t overtly malevolent: they aren’t laying awake at night thinking who can I kill today. Rather, they have an eschaton in mind: the day when Superior Man together in the collective of Benevolent Total Government ushers in paradise on earth. They’ve seen/heard what those 2 can do in small ways: single moms supported by the government who don’t need the support of an abusive father, nor do they have to bring children to term if they don’t want to. I could go on. The point is they have a god on earth and they’ve seen the good it can do and have heard how vastly more it could do if freed from the limitations of foolish and evil men.

                      That religious and very teleological belief is what has to change. It requires the patient, persistent attack of a sapper to bring it down.

                      The thing is, if you replace the god of their worldview with any but Christ, then ultimately they will fall back into collectivism.

                      The reason people are fed up with the GOP is that the GOP is just collectivism light: let’s wait 10-20 years before we do this; let us do it, we’ll do it more efficiently. People are frustrated that they don’t have another alternative, but conservatives won’t have a real alternative until we repent of our own idolatrous collectivist tendencies.

                      In short, undermine the foundations of their worldview, not the monuments of it.

                    10. That is the twaddle they sell as ‘critical theory’ which has been further perverted into ‘critical race theory’. The notion that objective reality is relative, and depends on how you feel about it.

                      The universe does not give a rat’s ass how you feel. It is what it is, and if you can’t deal with it on its own terms it will probably kill you, in a completely non-relative manner. If somebody chooses to reject reality, how can they be reached from reality?
                      “The bridge is out! Harry! The! Bridge! Is! Ooouuut!!”

                    11. “After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it — ‘I refute it thus.'”

                      You might need to assist them in hitting the rock.

                      Alternatively, you could mirror their twaddle: “I feel that you’re a dangerous idiot, who are you to deny my lived experience? Your continued waste of oxygen makes me feel unsafe. Your demand that I alter my language to suit your desires is cultural imperialism.”

                  2. You’re assuming your conclusion, there.

                    Or doing a Poe-worthy job of demonstrating the protected-from-non-cult-thought stuff of the very hard to rescue.

        1. OK, but who’s going to build the Happy Fun Processor?

          Hmmm, start with an engine. A BIG engine. Then a lot of gears…

      1. So does anyone know of any good investigations into how to handle cognitive dissonance?

        On the emotional permission and safety side, I’m thinking a truly anonymous debate space may be useful. Right now there’s a feeling that if you speak your mind on anything, someone will find you and rain the world down on your head.

        At the same time, I also think these debate spaces, in particular need to have a set of agreed upon rules.

        I’m wondering if this is something that could be done using crypto tokens of some sort?

        1. Isn’t there one of these already? I remember hearing about a hysterical article in the NYT or Atlantic or what have you that there was a chat app out there that’s got anonymized “rooms” where anyone can talk, and nobody can censor them or doxx them! …as though it was a bad thing.

          And all I thought was “Hey, great advertising for whatever that app is.”

          1. That would be interesting to see, and find out just how secure they actually are.

            And build more too. Distributed systems are more resilient to hijacking.

            1. If you build something bad people can make use of, bad people will use it.

              Just like… pay phones. In the early ’90s pay phones disappeared around here due to “used by drug dealers.” So the police leaned on businesses to have them removed, which meant they were no longer available for legitimate customers either.

              In some cities, someone observed that urban drug dealers tended to congregate under street lights to do their business, so the city turned off the lights. That gave a certain post-apocalyptic frisson driving through those areas at night…

              Now that drugs are increasingly legal, the war is against largely-imaginary “Nazis”, but it’s the same routine of “someone else is being bad, so we’re going to punish someone entirely unrelated to the problem to show we’re Doing Something.”

        2. I would look into cult de-programming. That seems to be the same type of cognitive dissonance that these folks who leave the left go through. I’ve also seen it from people who leave certain families. I know I went through it when I left my family/church and joined the Navy.

      2. Agreed, about them having to choose. It’s not unlike dealing with an addict: you can check an addict into rehab all you want, but they aren’t going to get clean and stay clean until THEY CHOOSE it for themselves. You can’t save other people with stuff like that, you can only help them save themselves.

      3. I was just watching Karlyn B. and she mentioned that the fear and cognitive dissonance is so bad that she had a terrible headache when she realized the “Trumpers” weren’t evil. Plus she truly believes that most of the “left” who realize they are on the wrong side won’t leave because they will lose family, friends, and jobs. So even if they are given the opportunity to think, they won’t take the opportunity to do the right thing.

        1. because they will lose family, friends, and jobs.

          Which is why the “confront your relatives” thing is so evil.

          They demand everyone on “the right side of history” alienate anyone who dissents, which isolates them– and thus leaves them sure they’re alone, if they ever do figure things out.

          Which is part of why I respond so very poorly to the “you have failed to agree with some faucet of my demands, you should die” type rhetoric on the right.

          It’s not just evil, it’s counter-productive.

          1. I’ve followed the SJW and woke stuff and when they decided to confront their families on the holidays and pressure them to be “woke good.” I wanted to vomit. EVIL I consider it all evil.

          2. It also provides a glimmer of an opportunity, dependent on the particular situation.

            If they kicked out a family member for not being woke — or kicked out most of their family and friends — then those are people they have a chance to recontact.

            Yes, that requires a lot of painful apologies. But for someone in this condition who probably definitely* has the gain on their need for social contact turned way too damn high, it is better than being alone.

            * part of what a cult is doing with Love Bombing and other techniques is superstimulating the social bonding mechanisms. Like any addiction you have to get the person to recalibrate for “normal”.

      1. I want her to f*ck herself. With a running chainsaw, soaked in ghost pepper juice.
        Don’t like America? Fine, lady. Shut the fuck up, or move to Cuba.

      2. As I noted when they first started targeting historical figures for demonization and cancellation is that entire reason for their attacking the people who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration was that it was their first step in legitimizing the Declaration and Constitution themselves as part of their end goal of getting rid of the Constitution entirely and replacing it and the USA with a Marxist single party all powerful state.

        Statements like the ones HarrisBiden’s UN Ambassador made should surprise no-one who has been paying attention the last 20+ years.

  1. In the film Why We Fight: Prelude to War there is a short list of mistakes made in the U.S.A, which includes “…the farce of Prohibition.”

    1. In its original form–the sale of alcohol was to be banned, but not the production or consumption of it–it was still pretty ridiculous, but might have…well, I can’t say “worked” because that was never gonna happen (you tell someone “you can’t do this” and of course you get a whole bunch saying “yeah? Stop me.”), but it might have better achieved a few of the stated goals. (Though frankly, I think the invention of working over-the-counter painkillers did more on that front.) But then, when they saw that victory was in hand, they went nuts and banned it all and…yep, dumpster fire.

      1. Aye. Even if their had been NO handy Canada, AND no gangs availing themselves of easy profit, there was still the issue that sugars (including starches) are common in a not-suffering-famine society and yeast(s) are *everywhere*. Might take a few tries to get something good, but domestic production of at least beer and wine went on because it really couldn’t not. Oh, securing borders and an enforcement agency will do? Meth: Oh really?

        1. To my mind, their cause was also NOT helped by the fact that they straight made up crap about the ‘evils of alcohol.’ People do not take kindly being lied to, especially in service of A Cause. Something else the current crop of lefty loonies are entirely failing to take into account (especially as…they keep getting CAUGHT.)

          1. I found at least one claim that part of Prohibition was..suffrage. “Well, if WE can;’t have the Vote, then YOU cannot have alcohol.” but nobody accounted for inertia – Suffrage happened, but then Prohibition happened anyway. True? Likely not in full. Amusing, from a Great Historical Distance? A bit, perhaps. Horrifying? Aye!

            1. I think they sometimes conflate the two because there *was* a decent chunk of prohibitionists whose railing against alcohol had its source in the domestic abuse exacerbated by its abuse–and a number of those had a lot of crossover with suffragettes as well. And, I am sure, the usual number in all camps who were really in it for the power they thought they could grab. (And boy howdy.)

              1. “Follow the Money.” is good first step.
                “Follow the Power.” (even if only Imagined) is also needed.

                And ANYTHING requiring a “hard sell” is a swindle.

                Gee, “gun control” sure gets a Hard Sell, don’t it?

              2. Read Little Women. Get a good social history of the time period.

                1. Abolition
                2. Banning alcohol
                3. Fabian socialism
                4. Immigrant friendly / xenophilia
                5. Suffrage

                These are all the same people.

                Not a “left” or “right” thing, yes? Not a power-and-profit thing, no?

                What they have in common is what Mr. Sowell called the vision of the annointed

                They wanted Christendom without any inconvenient Christ. Read some of the early reviews of Alcott’s work. Read Daddy Longlegs. It’s the “we can make Heaven here” and it is so alluring, but always ends in blood.

                If you really want to deprogram you need a more compelling moral stor y.

                1. How do you create Hell on Earth?

                  Ok, trick question; there are more ways to accomplish that than to avoid it.

                  But the relevant answer here is “Take Puritans and remove the precious few shackles that religion managed to impose on their behavior.”.

                  1. there are more ways to accomplish that than to avoid it.

                    It is the natural state of mankind. It is a marker of the SocJus cult that “not-Hell-on-Earth” auto-magically happens. So if you aren’t seeing said it, there *must be* some Oppressor(TM) who preventing it.

                    Take Puritans Idealists and remove the precious few shackles that religion Christ managed to impose on their behavior


                  1. They’ll get their bodies back at the resurrection of the dead. And they are human souls, even if unnaturally parted from their bodies for a time.

                1. Sigh. I don’t want to get to this. It’s not the fault of most women they’ve been convinced they’re a victim class who need government. In a sane society women voting would be perfectly safe. I want my granddaughters bio-and-not to have the franchise.
                  But– BUT a lot of work is needed to make the world safe for female franchise.

                  1. No– I don’t either. I don’t want to really cause a sh-t storm. But the “victim” class idea had cause tons of problems. And, imho women are naturally vicious. (I know someone is going to be really upset with that comment) *sigh

                    1. Cyn, I agree with you. 100%. Not really interested in “debating” it with anyone else.

                    2. The left has enough rocks in their brains that they make any group look stupid and unfit in when you sample the leftists. They’ve made /University Professors/ look like complete morons, and there are absolutely some intelligent and capable Professors.

                      Possibly the patriarchs were right about political power, and women, but we don’t have that confirmed yet, and right now is a bad time to be jumping to conclusions about such fundamental questions. I think 40 or 50 years from now might possibly have the information we would need.

                    3. And maybe owning property makes the difference. Men who don’t own property and don’t have families have their own sets of problems

                    4. Age and how secure people feel are much better predictors of how folks will vote than sex– and this is after generations of chipping away at the traditional protections of a secure family life, which is going to hit the smaller, weaker, higher-mandatory-biological-investment-to-reproduction sex in a disproportionate manner.

                    5. One of my first attempts at writing (I was…14? Maybe?) was a pretty standard scifi RPG isakai where there they all turned into their characters.

                      So the character that was originally a small woman and after isakai was the huge, hulking, scary guy (with an upper crust English accent) who had been the designated villain for the game was freaking terrified to be around anyone that might startle him, because in his head he was still a small woman.

                      So he was incredibly vicious, and explained it as “I fight like a girl.”

                      Which of course had to be explained.

                      Said story was like 90% dialog because I was havign fun with that. 😀

                    6. No. Women are vicious because they’re physically weak. When you’re physically weak you fight to kill by any means you can.

                      “Never frighten a little man. He’ll kill you.” — RAH

            2. Again, the roots of that bit of the political dispute were deep.

              Abolitionists, suffragettes, and temperance were aligned together.

              My recollection is that the Segregationists were also wets.

              The American politics of alcohol started during the colonial era, and is strongly tied to difference in culture and custom between the frontier and the more settled cities.

              That (early?) nineteenth century federal whisky tax, the increase in distilleries to produce more before the law went into effect, the conversion of the distilleries into breweries producing beer to be distributed in barrels through Saloons…

              Behavior tolerable to a bunch of frontier families, or to bachelors in a resource extraction town, is not going to be as well received when the bachelors bring in a bunch of women from settled places back east, and start families.

              So you got a huge fuss about behavior around Saloons, supplied by barrels of beer from elsewhere by rail.

              John Brown and Carrie Nation were basically vigilantes acting without the full backing of the population. You get vigilantes in circumstances where the law is not trusted to act. There were some very profound differences of opinion at that time. Athens, TN, and Cromwell, Oklahoma were also vigilante actions.

              Cromwell was a resource extraction (IIRC, oil) town in the Twenties. During the late nineteenth century, when Oklahoma was Indian Territory, white bandits were tried in the court of Isaac Parker in Fort Smith Arkansas. (Until Easterners shut down Parker.) Various lawmen worked for Parker, many very famous names. Three in particular were known as the Three Guardsmen. One of them was young enough that he was still in the law business during Prohibition. (Oklahoma, I understand, was a dry state into the 1960s or so.) Anyway, one of the Three Guardsmen was murdered in Cromwell by a corrupt fed, a revenuer, to my knowledge on the take from the bootleggers. In retaliation the whole town was burned down. I have heard by the KKK.

              Keep in mind that this was before modern understanding of pharmacy, so failures to really understand what elements of the behavior were choice, and what elements were chemically driven is a little bit reasonable. Also, before modern statistics, and before what passes for modern psychology. So some of the mistakes actually have excuses in defense of them.

              The US was a very large, diverse country, and the periods in question are a fairly long number of years.

              Some people may well have been righteously angry about domestic violence, or about spouses drinking all of the family income.

              Political power was accumulated on the basis of ‘doing something’ about it.

              National Prohibition probably was passed with a lot of support from modern, Wilsonian progressives, not just the Teddy Roosevelt 19th century abolitionist/suffragette/temperance progressives. Other elements of the modern Progressive agenda then, like the Pure Food and Drug Act, remain in force.

              Moderns commenting on the motivations of the people behind the policy cluster often seem to overlook the possible reality of the circumstances then. In particular, the implications of a lack of federal regulation of purity of ingestable chemicals when rail (and then road) makes it easy to evade local or even state regulation.

              Modern pharmacy tells us of many chemicals with extremely profound effects on human behavior. Some of these were available in the late nineteenth century, and included in such things as patent medicine.

              Saying that the claimed results of ethyl alcohol were a lie implies some confidence that they were observing behavior that was only a result of ethyl alcohol, and not also some other contaminant. No doubt a number of lies were told, people being people.

                1. You had two groups of do-gooders. Roughly speaking, Republican women were usually abolitionists, anti-abortion (because it killed women and babies), pro-suffrage for black people, and pro-suffrage for women. Sometimes they were temperance, but usually they weren’t extreme temperance people; they just wanted shorter saloon hours. A lot of Republicans were pro-immigration, although others weren’t; but generally they wanted immigrants to be able to become citizens and vote, if they were going to come.

                  Women’s suffrage was not popular with Democrat women until it started to look like Republican women might be able to get suffrage passed. The Democrat position on immigration was similar; they were all for it if they could get a machine going, but they didn’t like it if they couldn’t. And the same thing with civil rights for black people; they jumped on the bandwagon when it started to look like the Republicans would get it done, and then tried to take credit for everything.

                  The main thing was that banning liquor, beer, breweries, etc. was a very anti-German, anti-Irish thing to do, and sometimes was linked with anti-Catholic or anti-immigrant feeling. It was also linked with Democrat/leftist style Progressivism, although sometimes it was also strongly supported by churches that frowned on drinking.

                  There was a very big difference between people who wanted folks with alcohol problems to be able to “take the pledge” or otherwise be assisted to become and stay teetotalers, and people who didn’t want anyone anywhere to be able to drink alcohol.

                  A lot of people who were from churches that frowned on drinking, also found out that their new Progressive friends wanted a lot of other things that they didn’t.

                    1. They were not considered “white” for a long time. lol Which is when the progressives start making ‘white’ a class, it is f-ckn hilarious

                    2. I think some of the histories around Prohibition go a little too far in assigning Anti-Catholicism as a sole cause.

                      The basic religious issue here is that culturally, some of the Protestant flavors in North America had mutated away from European Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic customs. Look at how much modern UK Protestants drink. It is just that if someone wasn’t comfortable converting from Anglicanism to a flavor of Baptist, there were places where Episcopals were happily settled. There weren’t really a bunch of existing Orthodox or Catholic congregations to move into where behavioral difference problems would be minimized.

                      Talking about stuff as being Anti-Immigrant tends to unfairly stigmatize the fact that not all cultures are identical, and that some combinations simply are not practically going to have practical answers that lead to peace. It tends to align with the arguments that lacks of peace with pre-Reservation Comanche, Apache, etc were purely a result of racist motivation possessed by whites.

                      If you look heavily at the testimony of first generation Catholic immigrants, a lot of that behavior is going to look like Anti-Catholicism, and some of it was definitely Anti-Catholicism. But there were also customs to learn when moving from a Catholic monopoly country to a more mixed population country. That part of the first generation immigrant Protestant experience in mid nineteenth to mid twentieth immigration waves was concealed, where the Orthodox and Catholic experiences were not, because the ‘original’ mix in the more settled east was flavors of Protestant. Look at all the stuff presented as being ‘Anti-Muslim’, that absolutely includes people who have a little trouble translating from living under a government that is literally Islamo-Fascist to living under a government that until recently has appeared free, and tolerant of many denominations.

                      Specific anti-immigrant issues may not always be wrong. Sometimes imposing cultural values on outsiders is correct.

                      Wealth correlates to an ability to afford greater levels of cleanliness. Some of the source countries were more screwed up in ways that forced them to be poorer, and the customs of those first generation immigrants really were ‘dirtier’. Was that level of ‘dirtiness’ worth the level of actions taken in response? Maybe not.

                      There are several issues going on here, and one of the flavors of the political complexity is that the division between Republican and Democrat for one classification changed when the Democrats went communist. The modern Democrats are ‘reality should conform to theory’, because that follows the rule of behavior conforming to the truth set by the inner party.

                      Late nineteenth century Republicans had several flavors of ‘we should change the reality of behavior to match what we’ve agreed is the theory’. That was basically one of their defining flavors, in their approach to abolition, and to post Reconstruction race policy. ‘As Christanity says that blacks are people, they should be treated as people, according to the theory of this country’s government’. Plus a bunch of complexities having to do with a Civil War, imposing a theoretical change in the government of the country on the country, and later mutations like the Mugwumps.

                      Democrats were much more aligned towards a practice of Democracy, that ignored higher level theory, and traded in influence with local politicians. There were definitely Alcohol industry organizations that cultivated ties to major Southern Democrat politicians. This may be in the theory that if they did have ties, the politicians would protect them from Southern Baptists, and that the northern Republicans would not necessarily go out of there way to punish them. Or it might also be an alignment between the Anti-Saloon movement and the GOP, I don’t remember being able to point to documentation of the latter.

                      But, the late nineteenth century progressives definitely had some ties to the GOP, and the Mugwump Republicans were clearly of that behavior.

                      A lot of the Catholic immigrants aligned with the Democrats, whether because of the politics of alcohol, or because, coming from shithole countries, it left them less comfortable with the mad scheme to fully rationalize theory and practice, especially as theory lagged functional practice.

                      In the early 20th century, Democrat Progressives decided they wanted in on the effort to match practice to theory. Very mad extremes, even before they had their big switch to communism.

                      Catholic alignment with Democrats when the Democrats were explicitly white supremacist because of support for Segregation does not mean that Catholics were white supremacist and doctrinally in favor of Segregation. The situation was much more complex than that. Catholic doctrinal opposition to Segregation was itself a motivation for Anti-Catholicism. The greater complexity there holds for many other aspects of American history.

                      Insert sarcastic comment about how Irish-American Catholics salty about Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Irish ism must necessarily be super in favor of female genital mutilation, etc., or otherwise they are Anti-Immigrant.

                    3. Bob? Something else to take in account. A lot of Amerindians didn’t have the alcohol resistance genetically.
                      And a lot of Americans inherit that genetics. The prohibitionists on Dan’s side all have it (and he does) and have a high Amerindian component.
                      To them alcohol seems just plain evil. Sample it, and you’re dead drunk. They don’t understand this is not most people, just them.

                    4. Oh, I have the standard alcohol tolerance. I just don’t enjoy the symptoms. 😛

                2. Segregationists were strongest in the South, where “Dry” laws (even if only as bans on liquor-by-the-drink) remained in effect somewhat longer than Jim Crow rules. Of course, the South was also where Baptists tended to be concentrated – I’ve no idea what their policies were on segregation but those regarding drinking anything stronger than Sweet Tea are well known.

                  1. I was brought up Baptist but became a Methodist in my 30s. Methodists came within a millimeter of going teetotal, but didn’t carry through as a denomination.
                    As I get older, I get more and more amused by the arguments militant teetotalers put out. I remember one website in particular that solemnly stated that every New Testament reference to wine really meant unfermented grape juice. I just had the feeling it boiled down to, “That translation has to be wrong! Jesus would NEVER do something I disapprove of!”

                    1. They saw themselves as retuning to basic Protestant beliefs and practices. A strong emphasis on the grace of God being utterly necessary and promoting good works. Also that men should use experience, tradition, reason and revelation as the basis for making moral decisions. (The Wesleyan Quadrilateral).

                    2. The problem with that idea is that until Thomas Welch figured out how to pasteurize grape juice there was no such thing as unfermented grape juice. Yeasts grow on the skins of grapes so there’s no way to extract the juice without getting yeast in there. if you drank it early enough the alcohol content would be negligible, but even a few days of storage would result in significant fermentation.

                    3. THIS
                      And if you drink it early enough it “loosens your bowels.” Trust me, I come from wine country.
                      Jesus and most people of his time drank alcoholic beverages — as did I, btw, though watered, probably from being weaned on.
                      The water wasn’t safe without alcohol in it.

              1. “white bandits were tried in the court of Isaac Parker in Fort Smith Arkansas.”

                “Historical” note: This was “Rooster” Cogburn’s boss.

            3. A bunch of the same people were involved with both; eradicating Demon Alcohol was a big chunk of the “suffrage” movement, which, as usually happens, looked to expand its reach once its drivers realized they could make people jump to their lash.

          2. I have a book of “school dialogues,” from the mid-1800s. One I remember was about how horrible the ingredients in beer were; how filthy, unhealthy and nasty it was and therefore a good, strong boy would never take such adulterated stuff into his body.
            Sounds sort of like the “no GMO,” types.

          3. See the Drug War: not enough to give the true horrors, the fools had to invent a bunch of obvious lies to go along with it.

            So even people who grimace at the idea of ever taking drugs still go full tilt screw you.

      2. I gather it was also sold to the public as a hard liquor ban, not a bear and wine ban.

        But when it got in, the folks who enacted it banned everything.

        1. A bear and wine ban? Hey, I’d be leery of wine-drinking bears, too! The lack of coordination would be bad enough, but what if they’re mean drunks?

          1. Don’t try the thirteenth door on the third floor then. The one with black fir tree against green background.

  2. When this post started, I thought of the Cromwell quote then you “just had to mention it”! 😀

    Oh, I don’t know the answer to “how to de-program them” but if a way isn’t found, things can get very nasty. 😦

      1. We passed our last opportunity to avoid significant bloodshed last year. We probably passed the last opportunity to avoid bloodshed at all before 2010.

        1. Forget avoiding it; we passed the start of the bloodshed last year.

          It is just that one side isn’t shooting back if they can help it yet.

  3. I don’t know for sure, but the tack I’ve started taking is to call out the language used by leftists when they argue. It’s slander–if someone tells me that my actions or beliefs are the result of racism (or whatever), that’s a lie. It’s a lie meant to harm me for the benefit of the accuser. That’s slander, and I am owed an apology.

    I don’t know if it deprograms anybody, but it certainly resets the baseline of the discussion.

    1. Even pulling a little but of the foundation from beneath them is worthwhile. Enough little bits, and the whole damned edifice comes tumbling down. They call for “microresistance” to “microaggressions”? Very well, give the rat-bastards an Ohm or two here and there, and let the I-squared-R losses burned them out!

      1. We’ve been taught from a young age “sticks and stones may break my bones…”, but we’re finding out that words will, in fact hurt us. I’m starting to think that our ancestors had a point when they talked about defending their honor.

        1. Successful cultures that still have this concept require its execution with icy self control.

          We know what the alternative looks like: a column of armored vehicles rolling down the street with loudspeakers playing a stream of insults against ur mom. And then the people who are unable to exert that self control come storming out of their fortifications foaming at the mouth to meet the machineguns.

          Who knew that the gom jabbar was a real thing?

      2. There’s an analogy with actual sheep shearing. A sheep with even one hoof on the ground will struggle against the shearer. So the smart/experienced shearer rolls the sheep off its feet (ofen onto its tail, which is a pretty ludicrous position for a sheep). A sheep with all its hooves in the air will freeze and the shearer can get to work. So knocking human sheep off all their intellectual feet might be a useful thing.

    2. If they’re using (generally hijacking) religious language as a club, you may also use “gossip,” “detraction,” and “calumny”.

      Detraction is true gossip that unjustly harms someone’s reputation; calumny is false gossip.

        1. I’m so old I can remember when Liberals objected quite strenuously to anybody’s effort to impose their morality on society.

          1. Yeah, that ended before I was born. The whole “Satanic D&D” was very very Dem, even if they got some actually religious before politics involved.

      1. Detraction is true gossip that unjustly harms someone’s reputation; calumny is false gossip.


        Hmm, something like “Joe did $X!”, when he did do $X, but as an honest mistake?

        Wouldn’t that just be a lie by omission?

        1. For a pulled from the headlines example, “How dare you support Trump, he’s an adulterer!”

          Depending on if they believe the gossip of an extortionist who then violated her own pay-off agreement*, the statements about Trump cheating on Melania with a model/porn star (I can’t keep the gossip straight, and frankly it’s none of my business) would be detraction.

          The situations in which Trump’s claimed infidelity would be relevant enough to justify mention are extremely limited.
          Contrast with the objective and directly related facts that I followed with a *, which are directly related to identifying if a statement of fact is worthy of belief.

          1. My usual response to that (if I felt like arguing, which admittedly I usually didn’t) was either “And yet, y’all were okay with it when did it (or in the case of several, did a whole lot worse), so why are you upset now?” or “And that makes him different from a lot of men in his economic class, etc since pretty much forever…how, exactly?”

            1. Which is why “whataboutism” is such a thing.
              “Irrelevant claim!”
              “If it is true, your guy X did much worse, in a manner that is more relevant.”

              1. AKA the Tu Quoque Fallacy. The fact that they had to create a new (and horrifically ugly) word for a concept that was already well known and named just proves that they were never taught to properly think.

                1. Tu quoque is a better argument than it’s commonly given credit for being.

                  “Here’s evidence that you don’t believe [action] to be a crime. That cuts against your claim that [action] is a crime when I did it.”

                  Whataboutism is just dysphemism for tu quoque.

                  1. It’s a fallacy because people are hypocrites, they’ll do things even when they believe they’re wrong, so pointing out that someone does [action] does nothing to disprove the claim that [action] is wrong.

                    It does, however, discredit any attack on someone for supporting someone who does [action]. If it’s OK for me to support person A despite [action] it must also be OK for you to support person B despite [action].

                    1. My response to claims about “whataboutism” can usually be boiled down to: “It’s not the tu quogue fallacy because I’m not justifying the thing ‘my guy’ did by noting that ‘your guy’ did it too. I’m calling out your hypocrisy in only caring about it when ‘my guy’ did it, not when ‘your guy’ did it. It’s not about ‘my guy’ vs. ‘your guy’. It’s about you.”

                    2. People will do things that they say they believe are wrong. I come down on the side that people’s actions are a better guide to their actual beliefs than their words.

                    3. Not really. To use a trivial personal example, I know that I wake up at 4 AM, and I know that I should be asleep by 9 PM at the latest, but I will frequently stay up doing stupid things that could easily wait for the next day until well past 10, even as I know it will make the next day worse.

                2. It can be Tu Quoque, but it can also be a testing of a standard.

                  The funny thing is, they’re usually defending another fallacy– ad hominem!

        2. Another way to phrase it-
          if you’re telling the truth not because it is true and relevant but rather in order to hurt someone, you are abusing the truth.

          AKA, “those who loudly pride themselves on being brutally honest are generally more brutal than honest.”

          1. “We must never use one truth to deny another.” —Thomas Merton. I think it’s from =Seeds of Contemplation=, but I’m not taking the time to look it up.

      1. “Slander” has the virtue of being well-defined–it is an easily-proved fact that Reiner’s statement is a lie, that it is meant to harm Republicans, and that he believes he will benefit from harming Republicans.

        Slander also has the virtue of being actionable.

        1. Why, that’s simple. White Nationalism is EEEVUL!!

          That’s all they know, and all they want to know. The world would be filled with rainbows and butterflies, we’d have free green energy from unicorn farts, if only those EEEVUL White Nationalists weren’t obstructing Progress!

      2. In a sane world at least some of the headlines would read “Rob Reiner Declares MLK A White Supremacist.”

  4. I can see the bread-drop response as a “Thou shall NOT waste food.” thing. And from an age where Calories were hard-won, it makes sense.

        1. When I started dialysis, the nurses made sure to let me know that the “five second rule” did NOT apply to me anymore lol Yes, they tell everyone this in dialysis training.

    1. I was thinking maybe a conflated Scripture reading such as: “I am the bread of life,” or “…Man shall not live by bread alone…” but fragility with food is a good reason too.

      There’s also the one in “Tom Sawyer” (might be Huckleberry Finn) where there’re trying to find lost children on the river —that are assumed drowned—by throwing bread loaded with mercury out, which could (maybe, kinda) be Isaiah 55:11 (“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”) plus Matthew 4:4 (second above) but that might be also alchemy (since mercury is “quicksilver” or alive silver).

      1. I was thinking maybe a conflated Scripture reading such as: “I am the bread of life,” or “…Man shall not live by bread alone…” but fragility with food is a good reason too.

        “All interesting behavior is overdetermined.”

          1. No. It means that in a complex system there are usually multiple reasons for something to happen, each one of which would be sufficient in and of itself.

            The concept comes from biology where every mechanism is performing multiple tasks at once.

            1. Huh; in mathematics, an overdetermined system of equations means you have extra information: four equations but three unknowns, eg. Kinda the same thing.

            2. Ah! I gotta get up and to work in morning because I have bills to pay, plus I don’t wanna be a slug, plus I don’t want to use all my vacation days on non-emergencies….

        1. If you dropped a piece of bread, it’s likely that you cussed first…..

          It made me think of the Romany custom, that you should never ever cuss a fire, or even show it disrespect, because it’s an intrinsically holy thing.

          Or the Korean idea that it’s disrespectful not to eat every crumb and grain of rice on your plate, because the memories of starvation are still strong. (A German idea too, at least on the German side of my family.)

            1. Romany are from the “Indo” branch of the Indo-Europeans, so it’s probably related. If their beliefs aren’t descended from Zoroastrians they’re probably either borrowed from them or share a common ancestor.

              1. Eh. Since there’s theories but no real tracing of their ancestry, perhaps the ancestors of the ancient wanderers are descended from the Yazidis, who btw way that Gobleki Teppe was theirs (was it? who the hell knows)
                I’m also going to proclaim they’re descended from the last great civilization when it toppled.
                The unsavory parts of their culture came from either living for dozens of thousands of years among utter savages, or the ones who survived the collapse were utter savages. either works.

                1. I think I’ve seen reports that genetic testing and linguistic analysis both put them starting in northern India.

          1. I didn’t cuss. I never cussed until oh, about twenty years ago. And only in English.
            I mean, I have a string I say when I burn myself and I say that in Portuguese, but that’s it.

    1. United Nuclear Scientific will sell you yellowcake.
      Granted, not much and the price is prohibitive for anything Interesting, but… you CAN get it. ♉

        1. A gram of natural uranium would only have a few milligrams of U-235. That’s not enough to support a chain reaction, but less blow anything up.

            1. Fortunately atom bombs are always going to be expensive. You can use uranium for a simple gun-type bomb, but getting weapons grade uranium involves a bit of work. Getting weapons grade plutonium isn’t as difficult, assuming you have access to a nuclear reactor or spent fuel, but you have to use an implosion device which is basically precision forging with high explosives.

    2. I’m okay with that.
      I have a libertarian friend-almost-little-brother. We used to drink and text. Long story. You always knew when we were in our cups, because we started arguing over what kind of vending machine an ideal libertarian society would use for nukes 😉

        1. First, we gotta decide what’s the receiver of a nuke…. Then again, nukes are explosives, not firearms…. Hmmm. Nukes are ammo?

          1. Shouldn’t it be possible to build nuclear bullets, that are set off by sufficient impact?

              1. Yep, tho I was thinking “full muzzle velocity impact” being required to set ’em off, so dropping ’em on the floor wouldn’t be an untoward adventure.

            1. Barring some other invention you would need a small amount of antimatter to create a Sufficiently Large shower of hard radiation in your fizzle material. Two implications:

              1. If you have practical antimatter triggered weapons you can build the long sought after pure fusion bomb.

              2. If your munition is small enough you will eventually be getting more yield from the antimatter trigger than the “real” bomb.

              Containing the antimatter until detonation in a bullet sized object is left as an exercise for the reader.

                  1. Quibble alert! I think the word you are looking for is ‘fissile’, as in fissionable. If a nuclear weapon has insufficient, or incorrectly configured, fissile material, it will fizzle, and thus be a dud. Not that that makes it ‘safe’ as massive radioactive contamination will still result, it just won’t make the Big Boom. Part of my mis-spent youth was spent in the National Guard, and part of that time was spent as an NBC Warfare Specialist until they turned it into an E-5 slot wherein they could place some newly-advanced NCO.

              1. Speaking of nuclear bullets, I seem to recall RAH talking about ‘sub-microton’ nuclear grenades in Starship Troopers. Why? It would seem to me that less than three hundredths of an ounce TNT-equivalent would barely be enough to blow your nose, much less damage any bugs in the area of effect. Not that I would stick one up my nose to find out . . .

                1. No, “it was a just peewee, of course, less than two kilotons nominal yield, with implosion tamping and [handwavium] to get results from a sub-critical mass”

                  The raid on the Skinnies, chapter 1 of Starship Troopers.

                2. Wasn’t that during the raid on the Skinnies? Then it would make sense for a grenade that would make noise, scatter around a few fission products, but cause very little real damage.

                  It’s been too long.

        2. one could design a gun type easily enough and all you’d need was the cordite or equivalent and U-235 to bang together.
          Little Boy was so simple the design was “tested” by dropping it over the target
          of Hiroshima.

          1. I recall reading that the speed/force needed was such that if one arranged things just so, a fall of about 4 stories for one piece onto the other would be sufficient to initiate things.

            1. I know U-235 is less but to use plutonium they needed cordite to get the speed needed for fissile, not fizzle. When they decided to just use Uranium they kept the Plutonium design knowing the design would suffice, but I see very little on what speed is needed for a good bang, instead of a pop. Much is vague for reason, though.

              1. The plutonium bombs used RDX.

                RDX started as a thick liquid; early production used bakery equipment for mixing it. It could be poured like molasses and would set up into hard blocks. The plutonium core was surrounded by a hollow sphere of RDX, arranged as shaped blocks of explosive.

                One problem was that bubbles got entrained as the RDX was poured, and they caused detectable reflections in the shock waves, which were carefully calculated to impinge simultaneously on the entire surface of the core. By experimentation, they found that discontinuities in the explosive blocks were acceptable, as long as there were no voids. So a sergeant was detailed to take blocks of the most powerful military explosive in service, sink holes in them with a dental drill to get to the bubbles, and backfill the holes with liquid explosive in a syringe.

                RDX was a “safe” explosive, and none of those blocks went off when he was working on them, but that’s the kind of guy who you’re never sure if he’s an expert who was doing something not particularly dangerous, or if you should start running if he asked you to hold his beer for a moment…

                1. You are talking Implosion bombs, I am talking Gun type and they were in need of iirc 4,000fps velocity for the projectile portion to hit the target portion and maintain a critical reaction and not fizzle. Under 4,000 and it often went bang but blew the tow masses apart so no big badda bang, and only Cordite, at that time was able to generate the speed of burn for the needed FPS in the space being used. The Plutonium Gun Type bombs were long and skinny (they were code named Thin Man) and were hard to get to drop correctly, being prone to tumbling. Little Boy was based on that design (and flew better after drop) and they moved Plutonium use to the implosion type devices.

                2. “One problem was that bubbles got entrained as the RDX was poured, ”

                  And Doc Smith was well aware of it, thus leading to this brief example of competence in TriPlanetary:

                  “his TNT melt-pours …. came out solid, free from checks and cavitations.”

      1. Are you advocating for Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority again? 😛

        [It’s a segment from Michael Naismith’s 1981 video satire ‘Elephant Parts’]

          1. Visualizing marines with a 8 pack of nukes, hopefully they won’t mistake them for crayons!

            1. On the other hand, that sounds like a self-correcting problem.

              Would probably suck for the EMTs and the coroner, though.

          2. Marines secure the nukes so they would probably be OK. On the other hand they might decide that they needed a secure storage facility between they’re houses to store both nukes so they could trade off guarding them. That would be inconvenient.

      2. I think there’s a case to be made for storage regulations based on property sizes. I would rather my downstairs neighbor not juggle hand grenades and the guy next door tinkering with a nuke in his garage may impact my property rights. But if he wanted to move his garage to the middle of 40 acres, more power to him.

        1. I would rather my downstairs neighbor not juggle hand grenades

          Careful with that. Do you have any idea how many walls a bullet will go through?

          1. None.

            I have home defense rounds.

            The ones that police are banned from using, because they put big holes in the first thing they hit.

            1. You must be pretty far up the exotics tree then. Because even “normal exotics” will still go through several walls, simply because drywall is wet toilet paper at firearm energies and you need enough penetration to get into the vitals.

              Standard hollowpoints are horrible for this; they just get a plug of drywall material and convert to behaving like a FMJ.

              1. *points at walls* We don’t HAVE any drywall. At all. It’s either plywood for the newer stuff (basement, too soggy I guess?) or that plaster stuff that’s probably older than either of our grandparents, with various brick involved.


                Guy builds sample panels of various types of wall construction, then shoots them with different kinds of ammunition. Most interior walls are about as effective as holding up a sheet of notebook paper. Non-masonry exterior walls aren’t a whole lot better.

                Later, he demonstrates that one of the more-common types of “bulletproof glass” is easily conquered by ye olde 12-gauge (200 years and counting). Given the slug and ballistics, a Brown Bess flintlock (300 years) would still be an effective weapon against such targets.

                Anyway, worth your time to take a look. It’s 100% empirical demonstration, “shoot it and see.”

                (and even if your house is brick instead of straw or sticks, circumstances might involve unholstering somewhere else. At which point you’re faced with “know your target, *and what is behind it*.” Just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean it’s not downrange.)

                1. One of the interesting results that seems counterintuitive at first is that M193 doesn’t penetrate any farther than pistols or shotguns in drywall, despite the much higher energy.

                  SCHV fragmenting rounds turn out to be one of the simpler HD choices: they pack a wallop (as sk8rboi the gutless discovered), and have only mildly horrific overpenetration.

          2. Yes, but a bullet will only travel in a single line, so the actual risk from an unintentional discharge is very low (and I think we can all agree that there should be some regulation of ranges where intentional discharges are commonplace). High explosives, on the other hand, can cause significant damage to the entire structure, drastically raising the risk to fellow tenants.

            1. Agreed that there are reasonable (*cough hack spit*) regulations (*HORK* *turns a particularly deathly shade of grey*) on certain kind of dangerous devices.

              At absolute minimum it must only apply to AoE weapons.

              And I would disagree in the strongest possible terms that the proper source of those rules in the government. The conflict of interest is too obvious.

              1. The problem with that is that any entity that can enforce regulations like that is a de facto government.

                1. TIL that UL is a government. And insurance companies are governments. And Kosher certification organizations are governments. etc, etc, etc.

                    1. There are multiple levels of enforcement.

                      All of the insurance-like entities are the front loaded soft enforcement. They provide backpressure to push people away from teh stoopids.

                      Government level enforcement only comes into play after someone royally fucks up. Then they owe for all the damage they caused to life and property.

                      Well that is how a sane system works. But the idea of “you broke it, you pay for it” seems to be far too advanced for the average galaxy brain.

                    2. Imagine you own a house in a typical suburban neighborhood. I buy the house next door and start filling the garage with Semtex. How do you propose insurance is going to keep your house (and family) from decorating a crater?

                      Extreme libertarianism fails for the exact same reason extreme socialism fails: Both require humans to be perfect.

                    3. Oh I don’t know. Maybe the way insurance penalizes other forms of stupidly risky behavior? After that there is also the courts, which are still less damaging than the legislature.

                      Also nice rocket propelled goalpost: we were talking about grenades. Now you’ve moved it to multiple tons of explosives.

                      You are in the position of someone trying the claim that pollution has to be solved by governments, or that charity won’t happen without the government. Insisting that because the legitimate mechanisms for handling hard problems have been usurped and corrupted they therefore can’t exist isn’t being clever; it is showing ignorance of history.

                    4. Have trouble understanding the basic principle, eh? Not surprising. For the record, no goalposts have been moved.

                      Now stop dodging the question. How does your insurance keep me from loading my house with high explosives? Oh, did you assume *I* had an insurance policy? Why?

                      Appealing to the courts doesn’t save you because they only act when the damage has been done. Your heirs can sue my estate for wrongful death for all the good it will do you. Furthermore, once you’re appealing to the courts you’re right back at – drumroll please – GOVERNMENT! Yes Virginia, courts are part of the government. In fact, they’re the OG (as the kids say) government.

    3. Exactly. Most folks these days don’t know that the majority (or at least a large part) of the artillery used by the continental army during the Revolutionary War was on loan from private owners.

      1. Knew a guy in Nashville who collected WWI machine guns, and had at least two which were borrowed by the Army to use for the defense of the Nashville airport.
        The Armys’ private property tags were still attached, and they were returned with mounts and covers he did not have when they were borrowed.
        John in Indy

        1. Well, I kinda have first-hand experience with SIAD…
          Mmmm, warehouses FULL of small arms and accessories…
          Row upon row upon row upon row of everything from mountain howitzers to M1A2 Abrams…
          AND the munitions for same in various and sundry bunkers…

          1. Let’s regulate the militia (I do not think that word means what the gun prohibitionists think it means). Every able-bodied citizen receives basic rudimentary training at age 17/senior year of High School or equivalent. At 18, issued a service weapon for which they are responsible until they turn 45, at which time the item is reclaimed unless the holders exercise their option to purchase ‘their’ piece (at the depreciated price). Each member of the militia is issued 200 rounds per year of appropriate ammunition, 120 of which is expended in an annual qualification exercise. Additional ammunition made available on an at-cost basis.

            Something similar seems to have worked for the Swiss for quite some time.

            1. Objection, for purely safety related reasons there should be familiarization much earlier than that, even if it’s with basically unloaded (or whatever you call it) airsoft guns.

              Most of the actual child-accidentally-shoots-someone is because they were not familiar with weapons, just toys and TV.

              1. Completely concur, comrade. (Apologies, alliteration attack. Aaugh!) A foundation of firearms familiarization (true Gun safety measures, not the Gun Control wolf in sheep’s clothing promulgated primarily by progs) ought to start as soon as the child is strong enough to hold/manipulate the weapon. I’m talking about things like, ‘This is how you dig a foxhole’. Small unit tactics. Crew-served weapon familiarization. Field sanitation. Combat first aid. Care and use of NBC equipment. Things that would allow one to be not a net detriment to a group engaged in ‘festivities’. Granted, you’re not likely to turn schoolkids into trained soldiers magically, but it may serve to make them not a danger to themselves and others, and shorten the training cycle required to give them polish if the balloon should go up.

                1. ::gets the giggles:: you’ve accidentally lit into one of the dialog denotations of the lovely Lalafels of Limsa Lomensa, every Eorzians envy…..

    1. A thousand times THIS.

      (It reminds me of the Jews when they honor a “Righteous Gentile.”)

  5. THIS! It deserves to be linked off Insty, and maybe given a permanent link off your main page.

  6. 1. A lot of Never Trumpers were just conservatives to make money. Or they were pro-war, but didn’t care about those icky social issues.

    2. The left is wondering aloud how to deprogram *us.* This may not end well for either side.

    1. GOP ‘establishment’ types who hadn’t placed themselves to profit from a Trump victory, and did not want to let others profit, lest a competing power base grow within the GOP.

      Folks deeply committed to conventional thinking, and unable to see how the things recently exposed partly invalidate it.

      False friends cultivated by the left as an information operation.

      Plus some few intelligent, principled actual conservatives who are happier and healthier for having left the political business.

    2. Re: 2.

      They are still wedded to the notion that we are a single society, and that they can bring us into congruence with their so-called norms if they bring forth more of the pressures that they folded to.

        1. I was leaving unsaid that we are essentially two societies, and that theirs is smaller, weaker, and fundamentally barbarian, incapable of living in civilized peace.

      1. “You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.”

        Social Pressure is what got their commitment to the present ideology. They haven’t a clue how to use reason to convert conservatives into liberals. Nor can conservatives use reason to convert them, so we will have to a) use social pressure and b) engage outreach (which is why they ban PragerU videos) toward those not yet in need of commitment.

    3. Yes, they are– and can’t figure out it won’t work, because we’re not programmed. It’s just normal humans and normal mostly-rational thinking.

      The problem is generally that we tested some claim of theirs, and it was false, so now we won’t act like it’s true.

    4. Trump was (is) the Tea Party president. The Never Trumpers were those on the right who also disdained the Tea Party.

      More generally, a person’s attitude toward the Tea Party will generally reflect his attitude toward Trump. Me, I was a two-cheers for the Tea Party type, and I found the best recommendation for Trump was who his enemies were.

      1. THIS

        Though I would qualify it with “after 2017. ”

        Folks like me in 2016 who were initially “never Trump” were merely mistaken, as evidenced by our willingness to own the error, and move on.

    5. I will disagree on (1). I think most Never Trump Republicans were that way under the belief that Trump was never a Republican. This was a lifelong donor to the Ds who bragged about having the Clintons at his wedding; I was certainly on the list of those who thought it was insane to have him be the one running against Hillary. I’m pretty sure our hostess was on that list too.

      However, I think a lot of people once they made their decision on Trump, flat-out refused to revisit it. Some, like Jennifer Rubin, completely reversed their positions on various issues once Trump started to agree with them (good old “don’t take yes for an answer” conservatism). Others, like David French, did their best to ignore all of the places where Trump was doing exactly what they wanted to. Exactly why they did this is a mystery, but I suspect it has more to do with sheer stubbornness than “never conservative in the first place.”

      1. Andy Travis: “But I thought you didn’t hold with unions, Les.”

        Les Nessman: “But Andy! They said I could be in charge!”

        — WKRP s04n03

      2. There are two different ways the term “Never Trump” is used. One way, the way you’re using it in your first paragraph, is for the people who said “I’m never going to vote for Trump; he’s a D in R’s clothing.” I was in that category, though I changed my mind after he’d been in office for about a year and I realized that he really did embrace most (though not all) of the political positions I wanted. (Still wish he’d done more to cut down spending; a tax cut was great for the economy, but did nothing to address the massive deficits that are driving U.S. debt to ridiculous levels).

        The other way people use the “Never Trump” term is to talk about the professional commentators, like Rubin and French, who took the “if Trump is for it, it’s wrong” idea ridiculous lengths. When people say that the Never Trumpers were “just conservatives to make money”, as Barb did, they’re referring to the professional commentators, not the voters who aren’t making money from declaiming about politics.

    6. I would suggest that most Never Trumpers are the modern-day descendents of the Rockefeller Republicans. Reagan used anti-communism to wield together the elements of his three-legged stool, and then influenced the result in a conservative direction. The Cold War is over, so the anti-communism draw is diminished. That leaves “conservative” as the Republican identity. The Rockefeller Republicans want “their” party back, but can’t undo what Reagan did. So they’re pushing the same old stuff they did back before Reagan, and calling it (and may very well believe it is since it’s old talking points of one wing of the Republican party, and the Republican identity these days is “conservative”) “conservatism” since Republican views (which is what they’re pushing) are considered conservative by default.


    7. They were the eternal loyal opposition “conservatives” – i.e. the pet conservative pols kept around to have someone to “reach across the aisle” and “be bipartisan” with.

      The same R folks that opposed and eventually defenestrated Newt after he had the affrontery to win Republican control of the House. Can’t have that.

      If they get the vapors at “populism” you can bet they are pet conservatives. Good dog.

    8. A lot of Never Trumpers were highly doubtful of his conservative commitment.

      As were a large number of Pro-Trumpers who, nonetheless, were not at all doubtful about Hillary’s commitments.

      1. I have stated previously that I was a Syphilitic Camel Voter in 2016 – I would have voted for said diseased dromedary if he or she were running against The Dowager Empress of Chappaqua in the 2016 general election.

        Notably I was subsequently quite pleasantly surprised by DJT in office, though I wish he would have done a bit more new brooming.

        But that was just a bonus to every day being another that The Dowager Empress was not President.

  7. I’ve, for a while now, thought of the Left conversion as emotional programming. They learn, on a subconscious level, to have certain emotions connected to certain outside triggers. This is a normal thing for everybody, like your dropping bread and the way it makes you feel, but on the Left they have purposefully used that normal thing to make people feel bad if they don’t obey what the Left leaders demand and good when they do. Once that is programmed in on the emotional level it can’t easily be broken. Schools, especially college, and the media have been used the Left’s programmers to do the work over the decades.

    1. The Left’s hostility toward religious faith is in large part because it is a competing programming. If they cannot suborn a Church they must suppress it lest it reframe their morality and “steal” their congregants.

      1. Yep, it’s exactly why Lenin made the USSR an explicitly, constitutionally atheist state. The state cannot have the deplorables looking above the state for answers. If they do, they can find answers that contradict the state. Marx called religion the opiate of the masses, and Lenin outlawed it. But even Lenin couldn’t complete the removal of religion. At the massive funerals for the peasants killed during the riots pre-revolution (and even after), the Soviet flag draped the coffins…but underneath, the coffin was carved with the Orthodox cross. Religion just went into hiding. Here, religion is (finally) starting to fight back.

        1. Conventional, sane or traditional religion is trying to fight back.

          The opposition is largely the Soviet state cult. Which if you look closely at the doctrine, and the personalities, is basically about licensing the crimes of the most senior felon in the party.

          It is a religion.

          By classification, a heresy of Christianity, or perhaps a satanism.

          By branding, it is not a religion, and totally a for real super science.

          The followers believe it is a way to do good.

          But the design intent makes it clearly a predator’s set of mind games used to maximize the amount of suffering that they can inflict on others.

          1. I ran across a blog, and I don’t remember where, a few weeks ago, saying that modern leftism was a heresy of one of the Eastern religions, don’t remember which, and pointing out that the classism used by SJW was lifted right from whatever it is. Deplorables are deplorables, and can never be sufficiently anti-racist to be acceptable. Or anti-sexist. Or whatever the next thing is. Blacks and Hispanics can never be other than oppressed.
            Fixed classes, that you are in by birth, and can never escape by your own efforts.
            It’s not particularly surprising with the general popularity of Eastern philosophy, exercise, and light spirituality that other features got adopted.

            Both arguments for heresy are solid.

            We’re up against an unholy hybrid of heresies.

            1. One of the caste-based sects from India?

              We’re the Untouchables!

              …and this is my middle finger. The left one.

            2. Well, it is obviously a religion.

              You could also say that it is an animism with a basis in fringe academics in the 19th century inspired by advances in scientific modeling. The last specifics because folks actually current on the legitimate portions of modern modeling know some heuristics that would have caused the mistaken ‘hypotheses’ to be discarded.

              The case for Christian heresy, is a) the time and place Marx and Engels developed their stuff b) Lenin and Stalin where clearly working from Marx, and the French Revolution, and the traces of their communism is all over the modern stuff c) Marx divides humans into victims and oppressors, and relies on audience willingness to concede the humanity of the victims to convince them to act on his suggestions, and dehumanize the ‘oppressors’. The cultures that he recruited out of believed in the humanity of those he called victims, and they believed in that humanity because of Christianity and Judaism. Now, Christianity might be understood as a heresy of Judaism, but there were many more Christians than Jews in Europe, so I leave it that.

              I can definitely see the case for influence by eastern religions and cultures. i) PRC ii) one of the Indian security organizations was definitely trained by the KGB iii) DPRoK.

              Hindu, that caste system. Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism in China had some alignment with a caste system there. Japan had its own caste system, with some involvement by Shinto in the Japanese imperial regimes. There are definitely clear lines of influence. But a question occurs. Is this only influence, or do long time scales, large populations, and stable central bureaucracies tend to find this sort of thing convenient?

              I mean, the Inca had a complex multi-ethnic empire. Do we know enough about that bureaucracy to say anything? Egypt, and a bunch of the old Mid East empires had bureaucratic states, without necessarily being driven by cultural influence from India. Do we know enough for answering the ‘behavior is influence versus behavior is functional’ question raised here?

              If we could answer ‘definitely functional’, we might be safely able to dismiss the current similarity in features as accident.

              1. >> “Well, it is obviously a religion.”

                Over on ESR’s blog I once suggested the term “ideomania” for when secular beliefs got treated with the same dogmatic fervor as a religion. He really liked the term, although he never wrote a separate post on it as he was considering doing:

  8. I don’t know. I think that a bigger problem is the belief that reality is determined by consensus opinion. This seems to be behind the most objectionable tactics that they use. It also generates the problem that you are noting in this post.

    1. Reality determined by consensus…. OH what a different world THAT would be!

      Jimmy: We’re in a *different* Reality.
      Tommy: Prove it!
      * Jimmy drops two rocks at the same time. The heavier one hits the ground first.
      Tommy: Oh [CARP]!

      1. “Which is heavier: a pound of feathers or a pound of rocks?”

        It’s disheartening how many people get stuck on that one.

        1. The rocks obviously:

          Rocks partake of the Earth nature, and are thus strongly attracted downward.

          Feathers are Air nature. They have some Earth in them, but countered by the Air’s desire to be above the Earth.

        2. The rocks are actually heavier because the feathers, being less dense, displace more air.

          Weight and mass not being quite the same thing.

            1. One cubic meter of air at STP is almost 1.3 kilograms. Found that out while I was researching a zeppelin to use in a story.

              On the other hand, weighing out a pound of anything would take air displacement into account, so feathers, rocks or depleted uranium would all weigh exactly a pound. Oops.

        3. On the other hand, which is heavier: a pound of gold, or a pound of potatoes?

          The correct answer is that the pound of potatoes is heavier. Because potatoes, and most things we encounter in everyday life, are weighed using the “avoirdupois” system of weights, where one avoirdupois pound is equal to 454 grams (after rounding). But gold is weighed using the “troy” system; one troy pound is equal to 373 grams after rounding.

          So a pound of potatoes is heavier than a pound of gold, because those are two different pounds. Neat trick question, isn’t it?

        4. The corrolary to this one is: shich is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?
          Answer is feathers, 16 oz. A pound of gold is 12 oz troy. Heavier ounces, but fewer of them.
          John in Indy

  9. “The question is, how do you deprogram a few million people?”

    Yep, to do, and how to do, that’s the question.

    My first thought is natural selection, the self cleaning gene pool, but as Sarah noted, they’re not born nor bred, they’re trained. In the long game, natural selection will still be effective, but such could be a very long game.

    I still suspect humor, ridicule, can be an effective society cleanser, which is why the left is so humorless.

    Long run, perhaps a concept contained in Brunner’s Stand on Zanzibar, out breed them and if we breed enough, we get some really good ‘ns among them, but, when each and every couple has their six-eleven children, assure that apprentice adults so produced are never ever exposed to the halls of academia, learn early on to laugh at foolishness, and are raised to intuitively understand critical thought, unintended consequences and action produces reaction.

    Short run? I’ve got nothing, ‘sept hunker down, ride it out, protect yourself and yours.

    1. Denazification, at least in the Allied zones, specifically targeted party members as well as all the kids in the HJ by suppressing certain activities and publications, publicizing the crap out of the war crimes trials, especially all the stuff about the unsavory extracurricular hijinks of the NSDAP elite in order to discredit the leadership, and hammering German-language media (newspapers, books, and movies) with extensive details about the death camps. they also enforced curriculum placing ultimate blame on and establishing guilt of the German People for letting those things happen.

      They also went specifically after party members, who had only ever been about 10% of the German population, by excluding them from commercial and governmental jobs, and there was a list of people they were chasing who on war crimes charges circulated everywhere, so there were individual and familial consequences if Proud Party Member Uncle Rudy was not ousted from his business, or Cousin Hans who had been doing nasty stuff off in the East was allowed to work on the family farm.

      And above all, it was really obvious who had lost the war given all those heavily armed Allied occupation troops.

      Note the control required of education, media, and the courts.

      1. > hammering German-language media (newspapers, books, and movies) with extensive details about the death camps.
        Thereby creating a hardcore group of people who were certain it was all Allied propaganda. Because they didn’t see any personally, and everyone that wasn’t actually under indictment had never heard of such a thing either, much less been involved with it, no sir, “Lies! All lies!”

      1. Nope, further back: Convince TR to keep his mouth shut and NOT announce in 1904 that he would not run for a third term.

        If Teddy, for all his faults and his leftward drift through 1908, had been in office until 1912 Wilson could not have won, and much would be different.

        1. We don’t know about Biden yet, but Wilson still occupies the “worst President” position, though FDR gave him a run for his money.

          1. My personal ranking reverses that: FDR occupies the “worst President” position with Wilson being a competitive second place.

          2. Of course, FDR had six more years, a much worse depression and a bigger war, providing more scope in which to exercise dickishness.

            I would also throw LBJ into the ring as a contender.

            1. Until Biden, the three worst Presidents, in no particular order, were Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR.
              Biden is definitely going for the crown though, and he may get there even if he doesn’t get us into a nuclear war with Russia.

                1. Well yesterday West Taiwan announced that they are going to fly *over* Taiwan as a demonstration of sovereignty.

                  No word yet on whether Biden will order the USAF to escort them over and shoot down anyone who objects.

                  1. Chinese official media also expressly stated that “it could be” preparation for “forcible reunification”, i.e. and invasion.

                    HarrisBiden will get us attacked because our adversaries will see a window of opportunity where they believe that they will face minimal consequences or retaliation from an administration and congressional majority that has declared the USA to be the greatest evil in world history. They will believe that HarrisBiden’s response to such attacks will be to “take it” as being “justice” for America’s “historic wrongs”. In the HarrisBiden view, we deserve to be nuked.

                2. Iran and China are about the only countries that he isn’t going to get us into a war with. China owns him and would probably not appreciate their servant attacking them. As for Iran, he is giving them everything they want so they can build nuclear weapons, although Israel isn’t going to let them.

                  1. uh. I remind you that FDR loved Germany.
                    He’s going to get us in a war with it.
                    Probably by encouraging them to think they have us over a barrel and attack.

                    1. FDR especially liked their hatred of Jews. FDR would have been quite happy to let the Nazis completely murder every Jew in the world, and I suspect had not the Nazis declared war against the USA after the US declaration against Japan, Roosevelt would have only fought against the Japanese and would have never sent troops to Europe. He routinely mentioned “war crimes” by Germany after we went to war against Germany without ever mentioning Jews, even when his administration was aware of the mass murder being committed.

                      Note that the modern Democratic Party largely echoes FDR’s intentional exclusion of Jews in discussions of the Holocaust and indeed shares the same utter loathing of Jews that FDR and many in his administration had.

                    2. FDR wasn’t on the Nazi payroll. Granted, some of his advisors may have been making bank by dealing with Krupp, Rheinmetall, etc.

                    3. TBH, no. But with Pretendsident Hidin’, it’s just so blatantly, uh, blatant. Maybe FDR was better at hiding the tracks.

                3. China Joe won’t upset his paymasters. He may squawk a bit, but only until told to zip it by Winnie the Flu.

                  My feeling on the matter.

                  1. If they stay in power another year, a time will come when it’s turn against China or be killed. I said from the moment he was “elected” this guarantees war with China.
                    And I’d bet you anything.

                    1. Not taking that bet, thank you. You’re a pretty sharp cookie, and you have more experience of the Marxist mindset from the inside as it were. Time will tell.

                4. Since he’s a puppet of China, I guess I don’t see how Biden starting a war with China would benefit the CCP?

                1. Well, let’s see. Here’s a very incomplete list of what Lincoln enacted, leaving aside for the moment the question of whether the War Between the States was necessary:

                  1. The first US military draft;
                  2. The first US income tax;
                  3. The first unbacked paper currency.

                  Of course, all of those were adopted with great glee by Wilson and FDR, but Lincoln paved the way for dictatorship with just those three unconstitutional and evil acts.

                  I can’t think of a single thing that LBJ (a horrible person and bad President) did that stacks up to just those three things.

                  1. I’ll see that, and raise you:

                    1. Lied to get us into the Vietnam War
                    2. Gross interference preventing us from fighting the war effectively
                    3. Instituted the ‘Great Society’ eternal welfare state
                    4. Hijacked the Civil Rights movement
                    5. Gun control act of 1968

                    #4 is particularly pernicious, the claiming of credit for all the civil rights gains the Republicans had forced through against fanatical Democrat opposition. Today the Democrats blame the Republicans and ‘conservatives’ for the Jim Crow laws, segregation, racism, oppression and the Klan, ALL OF WHICH WERE PERPETRATED BY THE DEMOCRATS! Biden eulogized Klan leader Robert Byrd, fer Pete’s sake!

                  2. 1 and 3 are not unconstitutional. The Constitution contains very little in the way on how Congress provides for the military, other than not quartering them in people’s homes. Even domestic use is by Congressional Act (Posse Commitus Act) and not the Constitution. Same with currency-Constitution gives the Feds the sole power to issue currency and regulate it, but does not say anything as to whether it needs to be backed or not.

                    Only the income tax was unconstitutional as it predates the Amendment that provided for same.

                    The Civil War was made necessary by the South’s efforts to preserve at all costs the utterly repugnance of slavery

                    1. The Constitution specifies certain enumerated powers of the federal government, among them the power to “coin money”, which means to form precious metals into coin form, not to “print money”, i.e., create currency from paper. No enumerated power is specified for them to utilize involuntary servitude to fill the ranks of the armed forces.

                      Thus, both of those action were and still are unconstitutional.

                    2. The Constitution provides:

                      To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

                      To provide and maintain a Navy;

                      It specifically provides for raising armies and providing a navy without restriction on HOW that is done. Therefore a draft is not barred by the Constitution.

                      Re money: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

                      The logic that coins means only coins and not paper is the same logic the left uses to say the 2nd Amendment only applies to protect use of muzzle loaders. At the time of the writing of the Constitution the phrase “coin money” meant to issue currency, whether in the form of coins or paper currency, which was in use back then. It also has express authority to regulate the value thereof.

                    3. The draft may not have been unconstitutional at the time of the Fracas Between the States, but I’d argue that the 13th Amendment made it so. The bar on involuntary servitude would seem to me to pretty much prohibit a draft. Being Shanghaied against your will to be made to kill or die at the command of others would seem to be the very definition of ‘involuntary servitude’. Of course, there is a loophole – “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”. Ever been convicted of, say, littering or jaywalking? BOOM! You are now subject to the draft . . .

                      And of course the courts seem to have accepted the draft as part and parcel of the government’s power to ‘raise and support an army’. } 😦

                    4. Naw, if you’re convicted of littering they’ll just put you in Group W. 😛

  10. How to deprogram people? It’s difficult. The short answer is two-fold:

    First, shout the truth from the rooftops. Always tell the truth and make sure you can back it up. Don’t manipulate the statistics to “prove” your point, instead use the real statistics and be honest about where you don’t have the information. Let the other side be the ones known for lies and manipulating things. (This is one of the first things they taught us and kept emphasizing in PSYOP AIT many years ago.)

    Second, present the truth in ways that gets around their biases and defenses. Humor is a great way to do so. PragerU does this very well, actually. We won’t save everyone, but each one we deprogram will be another evangelist for truth and reality.

      1. Yes. I know very few people who were argued into changing their mind on something with facts and logic if they hadn’t made up their mind based on facts and logic in the first place… and the more ego they have invested in their decision, the harder they will fight to not change it.

        Which is why members of doomsday cults often double down and get crazier when the appointed day passes.

        But fiction has to run on its own internal logic or it breaks the story, and thus is why the left has been trying to conquer it to turn it into indoctrination. But with indie entertainment, we slip out of their hands… and often with foreign entertainment as well, because the politics embedded in the piece are… foreign.

  11. Sarah, in Fiddler On The Roof, Tevya picks up the Bible and kisses it after the bad guys destroy the wedding. I think it’s beautiful. For Bibles and bread, both.

      1. Isn’t it fun sharing a love for somebody? I got to see him live, as Tevye, in San Diego in… 2012? Front row. And man o man, he rocked it like it was nothing. Danced, sang. Flawless.

  12. At 80 and still with a funtioning brain I can remember a lot further back than most folk. Here in England I lived through the years of Socialist (our version, not the US type)with its emphasis on rationing everything – clothes, food that didn’t leave one feeling sick, toys (of course), you name it and Socialist dogma was that if there wasn’t enough to go round then only the rich or well-connected could buy it (on the black market, of course) I was one of the lucky ones, in a school where everyone was taught to think for themselves and analyse propaganda. To be honest, when I read accounts of the hard lives of Americans in the WW2 and immediate post-war years I can only wonder at how much you folk still had. And my French relatives who’d lived through Occupation were even harder hit. Their town didn’t even have mains water or sewage for years after Normandy was liberated.

    1. “To be honest, when I read accounts of the hard lives of Americans in the WW2 and immediate post-war years….”

      You’re pulling my leg, right? I’ve only heard things second hand, and don’t have many good sources left for that now, but pre-war (the Depression) was bad, hard, or worse depending on your circumstances; but all my relatives had food since we were farmers on both sides. After the war, things took off, for the most part; I mean, there was a bad drought in the ’50s, but the REA (Rural Electrification Administration) / co-op came with electricity and the phone company arrived too.

      I was shocked when I read years ago that then Princess Elizabeth had to save ration coupons for her wedding dress, in 1947?!! (and also impressed at her humility). I know (almost) everything got bombed flat in the UK (London and the Midlands and southward especially I guess) in the cities, and the continent got bombed by both sides, coming and going, but wow. Cory ten Boom’s second book (“Tramp for the Lord”) gives some indication of the devastation, but it’s been awhile (and I haven’t finished “Long Walk Home”).

      1. I was utterly boggled to find out that “Turkish delight” was a valid sweet beyond “they are literally dropping bombs on our heads.”

        Utterly horrified at rationing beyond war years in the UK, but….again…made me appreciate my grandmother’s admittedly not fully rational biases.

        1. Coal for residential heating was rationed (at least in some areas) up into the mid-1950s, from what I read in old issues of “Model Engineer.” Wikipedia says “rationing formally ended in 1954” for the UK, and was then reintroduced for gasline in 1956 during the Suez crisis.

          Remember, Britain wasn’t included in the shower of Marshall Plan money that was spent rebuilding the Axis countries; Churchill was rather bitter about that. Even going hat-in-hand to Washington when he got back in office still got the cold shoulder.

          Yeah, we saved their asses in WWII. But there was a good reason a lot of Brits disliked America afterward.

          [the Brits got locked out of the “joint” atomic bomb project by an act of Congress in 1946, just for the extra bitch-slap. They spent more money than they could actually afford to develop their own all-British bombs, and then got shafted again when the US condescended to, basically, lease them American bombs for so much cheaper that Parliament couldn’t justify their own program any more, but they had to give final control of any use of the bombs to America… they’d showed that they *could* build their own arsenal, but Britain was so stony broke they had to give it up and play pretend with foreign hardware. The cost of the aborted British nuclear arsenal hurt the economy badly; it sucked up resources that would have otherwise gone into building basic infrastructure. Not to mention years of throat-cutting strife in Parliament over the expense.)

            1. But he died in April of 1945 albeit Marshall may have come up with the plan by then.

              I wonder what was the rational for not including the UK?

          1. The throat-cutting they did as a matter of course is exactly the problem– the same idiots who are the reason the US had a sizable number of folks who had living memory of being done viciously wrong by the British kept making the same sorts of mistakes, throttling the chance for individuals to actually make things better.

      2. Note, part of why I like Elizabeth is that she seems to have thus far LIVED her mother’s “husband cannot leave, I Will not leave him, the kids aren’t leaving” ethos– they actually try to live their obligation to their country, no matter that they are largely symbolic.

        They see the value of symbols.

        They accept it, respect it, and live it.

        I can respect that.

        (Don’t get me started on race baiting bitch.)

        1. Andrew and Charles, failures of parenting.

          The guy was a failure of grand parenting who married that legitimate military target.

          I’m not feeling too charitable to Phil and Liz, even if they have many positive qualities entirely lacking in that female.

            1. Which makes the “look at all the childless leaders in Europe” point less applicable; when were they ever not childless in practically.

              1. um…. the “Leaders of Europe” are private citizens not royals captive of the state.
                And dear LORD. People of influence used to have MORE children. (That survived.)

      3. Oh, I didn’t read the rest of the sentence: “…I can only wonder at how much you folk still had.” Yes, we definitely came off better than everyone else, except maybe Canada and I suspect t that Canada took a higher percentage of casualties due to longer years of service.

        Funny story: My grandfather had to go to court because during the war someone killed a (probably very lost) moose in the neighborhood. (I think my mother said who killed it, but I don’t remember now.) Naturally, there was no open season on moose in our state since there were no native moose. Grandpa was fined since the meat was found in his smokehouse; the people (a the courthouse or the neighborhood) took up a collection to pay his fine.

  13. The tried and true method is to have them get their way, fail hard, and suffer. The Left has gotten their way. They fail, but explain their failure away by blaming The Other. In the rare instances when The Other cannot be blamed, they deny the failure and avoid suffering in a number of ways.

    IMHO, while they fail, they tell themselves that they are not failing *hard* so they haven’t faced the fact that they are on Step Two. They use tax dollars and political power to avoid the necessary suffering. Because of the way they are avoiding reality, I think there is no way to get them to face the fact that they are wrong about anything, so violence is unavoidable. When it happens, it must be absolutely overwhelming so there is no question that this is what happens when you try to rule Americans.

  14. I don’t know why there’s this compulsion on the right to reduce the butcher’s bill. I would be happy to make sure that the lion’s share of deaths are leftists. I honestly can’t see what is wrong with killing “people” who ruined Sarah Palin’s life for not murdering her baby.

    1. Palins’ book, “Going Rogue”, was a pretty good read describing the disaster campaign with McCain.

      1. Well, there’s your problem, she was playing second banana to John McCain.

        In a sane world, McCain wouldn’t rank any higher than fourth banana.

        Even in the banana republic that we’re being turned into.
        The Democrats are willing to burn America to the ground, so long as they wind up squatting on top of the ashes.

          1. After Trump, looking back at the idiots who got the Republican nomination, I’m kind of appalled. I voted for those people too. And they were all part of the DC Fusion party, and more into losing gracefully than achieving any conservative political goals.

          2. McCain was the Big Dog in the party. Anyone would do for a running mate; Palin got Diversity Points for the ticket, otherwise she was just a nobody ex-governor. The ticket was basically “War Hero Senior Party Member + generic woman.”

            And remember, a lot of people *liked* McCain; the Party’s PR machine had been polishing his image for decades. They didn’t know any better, and the media of 2007 had nothing much to smirch that. Sure, some whack-a-doodles on “conspiracy sites” bringing up his military and voting history, but almost nobody paid any attention to that sort of thing.

              1. McCain was the establishment candidate they thought they could portray as being outside the establishment in order to get the “fed up with the establishment” voters. These voters of course rejected McCain because they didn’t buy the ruse, but voted for Trump 8 years later.

        1. From what we learned by McCain’s actions later, a case could be made that Obama might have been the lesser of two evils.

        2. I voted for him and Palin on the lesser of two evils basis, but he made me uneasy. I happened to catch a view of his headquarters after a primary victory and he was WAY too comfortable with the adoration of his followers.

          1. part of why he and his hate(d) Palin so much was she got the REALLY big crowds.
            He and She together got 10s of thousands, she alone got pretty much the same, whereas he alone got thousands, yet they claim she was the drag on the ticket.

      2. I only read it until I found out the reason that she resigned as governor was that she was required by Alaskan law to pay her own legal bills for the investigation against her (because of what the accusations were). Then I felt better about her.

      1. And because what comes out on the other side of the bloodshed has about a 1 in a billion chance of being a Constitutional Republic. It’ll be Pinochet if we’re lucky

        1. I’m of the opinion that even that’s optimistic. We’d be lucky to end up with Emperor Bonaparte, who launched the continent (the world, for all intents and purposes at the time) into almost two decades of war.

        2. From a purely imperial point of view, Pinochet’s error was giving up power. Franco only yielded power when he was dying. And absent a United States of America, I’d argue neither would have ever done so in favor of other than the next Imperator.

          If we do get our Man On A Horse (or equivalent armored vehicle) riding in to fix the mess left by these loons now in power, he will be getting his President For Life repeal of the 22nd Amendment fully in place well before his administration hits the eight year mark.

          1. Or he’ll pull a Putin and have one of his cronies run and then name him some policy czar.

            1. Putin is executing a pure Augustan play, retaining the forms of the prior republic while aggregating all power to himself.

              The real question is when Vlad is gone will the next tzarlet succeed in suppressing the forces that will try and push power back to the Duma.

      2. And because engaging in killing tends to mess people up.

        It messes people the least when they are mentally prepared, and there is no question of the morals.

        A civil war is far too brutal and random to be either of those.

    2. 1) I’m of the opinion that we probably ought to kill all of the pot smokers.
      2) Even I can look at the historical examples of past civil wars, and calculate the effect on restoring peace of killing too indiscriminately.

    3. Because the butcher’s bill includes family members who are not bad, nor corrupt, nor eve useful idiots – they’re merely mistaken. My brother the union member has been fed such a stream of propaganda about the evils of conservatism that he’s impossible to engage on politics – but he’s a good brother for all of that..

      1. Worse– folks who are 100% correct, but someone has decided by stupid markers that they are mistaken.

        Which is why I keep hammering on the “execute a mother for her son dying of a rare complication of infection, because she didn’t follow a doctors orders, even though that would not have prevented his death and in fact the dead child spent the prior 14 hours in the hospital with his sibling, so any obvious medical issues would have been noticed by competent medical personnel” thing.

        And why I keep pointing out that preferred Demonized Department of the Day is not, in fact, staffed by the hordes of Satan himself, when I have relevant information.

        Those are lies and must be countered, lest we be become that which we fight– worse, that which we fight, with some residual effectiveness.

        1. And why I keep pointing out that preferred Demonized Department of the Day is not, in fact, staffed by the hordes of Satan himself, when I have relevant information.

          However, the Demonized Department of the Day is part of Government.

          The Spartans had the right idea. They just screwed up by targeting the helots.

      2. The whole family on different sides of a civil war will break everyone’s hearts. I don’t know if I could bear that.

  15. Part of it is indoctrination. Some of it very young. To this day, if I drop bread on the floor, I pick it up and apologize (though I don’t know how to bless it) which makes no sense whatsoever, since bread isn’t sentient. But I was taught before I could read that dropping bread on the floor is evil and you must pick it up, apologize and bless it. No amount of rational thought stops that. And not doing it makes me so profoundly uncomfortable it’s easier to just do it.

    Just so we are clear; are you meaning apologizing to the *bread*? Because otherwise it makes perfect sense to apologize for making a mistake.

    The question is, how do you deprogram a few million people?

    Your earlier observations provide the beginning of the answer: it starts breaking when they can no longer deny that they are in the minority. Sure it will be hell for them, and they will inflict hell on others in reflection of that. But that is the only path, and the natural one.

      1. It might be related to the Eucharist. The bread actually becomes Jesus body, so dropping any bread becomes dropping God’s body. It isn’t exactly theologically accurate, but it makes sense from a certain point of view.

      2. I apologize to my grandmother’s (who lived through the Depression) shade when I don’t manage to get every edible scrap of the meat or vegetable I’m chopping into the pot.

      3. John Calvin says it wasn’t your fault and you’ve no cause to apologize for what you were destined to do.

          1. If one drops a whole loaf does one have to apologize for each slice, like saying a rosary?

            If one drops a sandwich is it twice?

            If a loaf of bread is not sliced yet, is it just one?

            What? Me, a pedant? Why do you say that?

        1. Except that he doesn’t say that. It is one thing to say that XYZ is the logical result of a position. It is another thing entire to claim that a person made a specific statement.

          1. EVEN if it were true.

            Accktuuuuallyyy….. no.

            Calvin == true means that Christianity == Calvinism.

            Part of Christian doctrine is that Good and Evil are explicitly not defined by man, but by God. A oversimplification would be that (Good == whatever God does or commands) and (Evil == whatever God hates or forbids).

            Given (Calvin == true), Good and Evil are defined in terms of that, and thus that human’s opinion of the matter is irrelevant.

                1. Saying He gets to save you even if you were really bad is one thing. Saying “You could be the best person anyone can be by human lights” and get condemned?
                  I think it might have been what Heinlein was taught, and why he htought most people’s versions of G-d had the minds and the manners of 2 year olds.

                    1. Ian? We’re supposed to have the sense inside us of what is good. It’s not arbitrary. If someone interpreted the Bible to say it was necessary to kill every kid under 5, would you believe it? Even if it was “justified in terms of itself?” would you consider that sect not evil?

                    2. We’re supposed to have the sense inside us of what is good.

                      Specified as corrupt and resisted (“only evil continually”). Therefore untrustworthy. Therefore has to be checked against, oh right.

                      If someone interpreted the Bible to say it was necessary to kill every kid under 5, would you believe it? Even if it was “justified in terms of itself?” would you consider that sect not evil?

                      That would require some remarkably solid proof to come up with that and never contradict anything else. But if after all the rigor was done and all the possible flaws were ruled out (a work of centuries) that was the only conclusion? That is what one would have to believe.

                      Which isn’t to say I would do it. But then I never claimed to be a good christian.

                      (I’m not going to pull out the Isaac cheap-shot, because there are lots of specific orders that are exceptions from the normal rules)

                  1. The “playing fair” (why oh why do we keep this word in the language?) is the requirement for perfection.

                    Obviously humans can’t live up to that. Hence the need for the Christ.

                    1. Because it is of use.

                      Misuse does not rule out proper use– dropping it serves no purpose. They stole it because they wanted to control the meaning of “just,” and since they stole fair they’re now going after justice.

                  2. That is my basic sense. I keep being told that “life is not fair.” I try to be as “fair” as I can even though no one else is doing it. I have a firm belief in consequences.

                    1. It’s been corrupted like the word “liberal” — I use fair as “not taking advantage” and “not cheating.” (All is equal before the law is fair)

                    2. “Life isn’t fair” is invariably — at least what I’ve seen — to shut up people whining about how the world isn’t perfectly equal in all aspects (or them a little ahead).

                1. It feels all wrong.

                  “Feels wrong”, or “leads to unpleasantness” are good alerts that something might be amiss, but they are not arguments in and of themselves. Confusing the two is nightmarishly dangerous, as evidenced by the wokeists.

                  1. I listen to the feels.. then I look to see why I don’t like it. I can see so many problems for “predestination” and accepting predestination can cause generational problems… for instance– look at what happened in the caste system of India…

                    1. Yeah.

                      On an individual level I could talk about covenant theology–covers the whole predestination thing from the Presbyterian pov in a few sentences–then move on to the next logical question. “Does that mean Jesus didn’t die for EVERYBODY?”

                      I say “could” because I’m not interested in defending the weirdness of what now seems like somebody else’s faith.

                  2. When I say “feels wrong”… my whole being violently rejects it. I have spent my entire life as a person who made my own decisions– good or bad.

                    1. Cyn, me too as far as decision making. But my screw up was making decisions from the wrong-way round: logic, then try to force my heart to comply.

                      I’m only now learning how to work the way I’m supposed to, and that’s just what you describe. I’ll feel a resonance one way or another in my heart, then I step back and let my wonderful brain do her work. It feels really, really strange. Directionless? Not really. Just trusting in another, higher direction. He has a much better view.

                2. Well, the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) went full cultural Marxist, so any hope of following Calvin’s guidance on the Bible is down to the individual. And most of what *he* actually said is what I believe is true.

                  Hard to sort the junk from what he actually said. Organized religion has distorted so much I won’t play anymore.

                    1. Gathering with the brethren has never been easy for me, but I think it’s important to connect with Jesus-centered people. So I’ve tried and tried to connect with various churches and denominations.

                      The scam-demic has cured me of that desire. That’s when the degradation of the church was in plain view. I really needed my pastor to stand up and be brave. He wasn’t able to do that.

                      I’m done even trying to connect via that route.

              1. I come from a Reformed background, which leans heavily on Calvinism but not exclusively.

                But it seems to me you have to accept that, ALL things are predestined, as in God knows exactly who has been & will be saved, and it’s not everyone. And that He has the power (omnipotent) to save everyone / destroy everyone if He so desired. So there is nothing that falls outside of the ‘The Plan’.

                If that’s the case though, you have to also accept that for some reason, God values Free Will above and beyond ordering this universe according to what He wants – else how could He allow evil to exist? We make robots that stick to their programming — it would be the height of arrogance to assume God couldn’t have done the same.

                And so I have to conclude that He has consciously stepped out of the way of our mortal efforts to express that Free Will because it’s more important to be able to do that than to prevent what we might consider ‘evil’. It’s also clear from Scripture accounts (and many many personal testimonials) that He still.. adjusts things from time to time. Is it ‘fair’ that God adjusts your life and not someone else’s?

                To say “God knew you would do that” is not to remove your own responsibility, nor the consequences of what you do. And there are hints that those consequences extend into the next life.

          2. [does a search on Calvinism] [hits Wikipedia and Infogalactic] [word salad scrolls up screen]

            I have no idea what I was just looking at. It reminded me of when I was trying to make sense of Hegel.

            1. I’ve never seen anything from Calvin himself that was evil. People who created TULIP and “Calvinism” added a bunch of weird junk.

      4. Then you bless it because you will eat it anyway on account of the way that a lack of calories can kill you.

        They knew dropping food on the floor was less safe, but they had to eat.

  16. “…how do you deprogram a few million people?”

    Can we deprogram them ethically? I would argue that conditioning people to be politically reliable is wrong no matter who is doing it. Adopting such a technique would be no better than changing masters.

    If a thing is wrong, it is wrong.

    I suppose that leaves separation. Send them to “Coventry” (maybe Canada wants them) in lieu of a one way helicopter ride.

    1. If a thing is wrong, it is wrong.


      Which is probably why the Progs keep phrasing the conditioning done as “education,” because actual education is the cure– there is a definite tendency to claim the mantle of whatever thing is a true threat to to them.

      But, if deprograming is limited to “free up ability to make choices, while respecting individual choices and telling the truth”….

      Lead the horse to water– but don’t make him drink, so to speak.

      1. I know that my cousin reads my blog and she’s mentioned a few other doubts that she’s had recently. So, I continue to write on my blog and hope that she continues to read and continues to think. As somebody said upthread, keep talking, keep pointing out the contradictions. Ask for explanations. I have a few friends who are flat-out leftist useful idiots on line, but in person are more rational.

        When I was teaching, I used to tell my students to read their papers out loud so they could more easily find the run-on sentences or the fragments, or whatever. I think we need to do the equivalent of asking people to read out loud. A few “explain that to me, will you please?” will likely result in confusion. Because one assumption of the indoctrinated is that everybody is indoctrinated and thus “discussions” are simply regurgitating of the little red book. When asked to explain, confusion, and maybe some thinking sets in.

        1. One of the tricks for throwing off or exposing social troublemakers is to feign ignorance and ask them to repeat what they just said.

          They don’t want to do that.

      2. Some of them *do* think. But “the lines in their heads are wrong.”

        It’s no so much thinking, as unlearning a tremendous amount of falsehoods that they were programmed with by school and media, ideas that they don’t even realize they hold, and certainly have no memory of where they got them. Those ideas were always there, like air. And if you challenge that, they just curl up and hang on to them even tightern.

    2. And that is part of the line of argument that caused me to have a very expansive preference for capital punishment policy.

      1. The biggest problem I have with capital punishment is that the government runs it. They run it the same as everything else they do.

        Consider that the person in charge of capital punishment in your state will be someone like 25 year police veteran Kimberly Potter. A nice lady by all accounts, a good mother, who couldn’t tell taser from pistol when push came to shove and killed a kid through sheer, astounding, blithering incompetence.

        Or, the person in running it might be the still un-named officer who shot Ashli Babbit, who isn’t going to be named or charged at all. Because he shot a -white- woman, and that’s okay. She was asking for it, y’know.

        So no thanks to capital punishment. If they’re going to kill people, I’d like them to have to WORK for it.

        1. What’s interesting is that one of the most ardent leftists on my FB feed made a post the other day saying that you never know what you’re going to do under deep stress—and then related an incident where he ended up in a bullying circle that disoriented him to the point that he throttled a good friend and almost broke an adult’s thumb before collapsing, with no memory of either event. And he posted this as a comment that yes, it’s actually possible that she confused the two devices.

          1. “…it’s actually possible that she confused the two devices.”

            It’s completely possible. Not -excusable- mind you, in a 25 year police veteran. People default to their lowest level of training when under combat stress. They do things like forget to release the safety on their pistol, or they stop to pick up their brass during a fight because that’s what they do at the range.

            I totally believe she thought she had her taser in her hand when she shot him. Manslaughter is the appropriate charge for that. A person died because she never practiced with her weapons. You carry it, you better damn well practice with it. Harsh judgement maybe, but somebody died. Can’t let it slide.

            1. Not like lefty members of the Capitol Police for whom shooting unarmed and unthreatening visitors is completely acceptable.

        2. Oh, fuck no was he a “kid.”

          A violent 20-something with a warrant out for violent crimes resisted arrest via getting into a DEADLY WEAPON and driving at people.

          She f’ed up, sure.

          But stop it RIGHT THE FUCK NOW with the “kid” BULLSHIT.

          That guy could, and likely would, have killed me for just as little reason.

          Because he could. Because he wanted to. Because my life mattered less than “I want this thing and you’re in the way.”

          The violent, known criminal was doing illegal, dangerous things, and died. That it was a result of an insanely damaged police force F’ing up by trying to use non-deadly force when they should have been using deadly force does not make him a “kid.”

          I signed up to die several years younger than that worthless bastard.

          Either he deserves the basic human dignity of owning his behavior, or most of our military deserves no respect at all for their volunteering to offer their lives for that which is right and good.

          They cannot both be true.

          1. In this one case I agree with Fox.
            like when they killed the “poor hispanic lesbian in Denver in 2015…. when she was driving at the police, had knocked one down, and turned around to run over him.
            His partner shot her to save the fallen policeman’s life.
            The left tried to run with it, but it came out she had an history of car jackings and near-deadly assault on people…… Like, she hadn’t killed anyone by PURE luck. It included throwing a toddler (fortunately in his seat, which saved him, but not without injury) out of a car she’d car jacked. (She had car jacked the car she was driving, when they tried to sop her.)

          2. Democrats: “We need more gun control laws and need to ban guns because there is an epidemic of gun violence”. Also Democrats: Police are evil because they routinely pull people over because of outstanding warrants for illegal guns and attempts or successful use of those illegal guns in committing crimes and therefore police must be abolished.

            So basically Democrats want private ownership of guns banned and no police so that criminals can run amok with guns and commit all sorts of violent crimes-oops, they call it “forced redistributive justice” , while law abiding citizens are expected to cower in fear.

            1. I think I saw the term ‘material liberation’ in a recently featured (in another blog) tweeter feed. So the property is oppressed, and needs to be set free?

          3. Generic use of the word “kid”, no offense intended.

            Deadly force used by accident in an arrest that did not involve mortal peril to the officers. No weapon evident, plenty of officers on hand to deal with the suspect, etc. We find out -later- that this suspect was a dirtbag, that’s not unexpected in cases where the idiot resists arrest. Being an idiot is a whole-life commitment.

            Compare and contrast wiith Ashli Babbit. The officer who shot her to death has yet to be (officially) identified, and will not be charged byt the DOJ. Because she was asking for it.

            Unofficilally, his name is all over the interwebz, he was identified within hours of the video going out.

            I’ll note at this time that Lon Horiuchi is still walking around free, but even he got charged.

            1. Look, you clearly got snookered into the trick, so don’t take this personally. In the same spirit as the no offense statement.

              Generic use of the word “kid”, no offense intended.

              Offense doesn’t matter.

              Liability does.

              Deadly force used by accident in an arrest that did not involve mortal peril to the officers.
              Oh, being run over by a psychopath in a car is no longer a risk? So good to know.

              No weapon evident,

              Besides the TON PLUS VEHICLE.

              We find out -later- that this suspect was a dirtbag

              No, they went to check, came back with the “hey, you got a warrant”– and then the f’r tried to run folks over with his vehicle.

              He didn’t even have the sense to go “Oh, I have a warrant out for prior violent activates” and do a runner ASAP.

              None of the other aspects matter for some known violent f’er who tried to run folks down with a car.

              1. I’m not saying the suspect was a great guy or something. I’m not even saying shooting him would be unjustified, given his resisting arrest. I wasn’t there, I can’t make that call. That’s for the court to rule on. Whatever, I’m not of the opinion that he was standing on the corner minding his own business.

                But I do know that the officer who shot him appears to have meant to taser him instead, and f-ed up by the numbers. She even dropped her pistol on the ground after pulling the trigger. Thereby exhibiting a profound level of incompetence in a policewoman. That’s the type of thing one expects from an un-trained civilian digging in her purse for a weapon in a parking lot at night.

                1. You said he was a “kid.”

                  That has inherent statements about moral liability involved.

                  None of which apply to a fully adult known violent criminal acting with a deadly weapon acting to use such deadly weapon to avoid arrest.

                  But I do know that the officer who shot him appears to have meant to taser him instead, and f-ed up by the numbers.

                  Since her first F-up was “attempt to use non-deadly force that would not work in the face of attempted vehicular homicide,” yes, she did. Just not at the same spot.

                  Thereby exhibiting a profound level of incompetence in a policewoman.

                  Check out where she’s hired.

                  That’s the type of thing one expects from an un-trained civilian digging in her purse for a weapon in a parking lot at night.

                  Oh, no, that wouldn’t be the case– effective violent resistance is *illegal*, you know. Or effectively so.

                  (insert snarl here, not at you, at the unspeakables involved)

                  This is a police force highly purged by the demands of the psychopaths. Anyone still around is crazy, or so idealistic as to highly correlate with the same.

                  1. From my research over the years, most violent offenses including murder are committed by males between the ages of 15 and ~25, I’m using “kid” as an indicator of age, not innocence or supposed lack of experience. We’re told that the deceased had an impressive rap-sheet and outstanding felony warrants, plenty of experience there.

                    One of my first impressions of the police woman is she was exactly what one would expect from affirmative action hiring and 25 years of Woke policing policy. An officer who can’t tell a pistol from a taser when it’s in her hand, pointed at somebody. You relax hiring standards and promote suck-ups, that’s what you get.

                    Some may say “Easy for you, Phantom, sitting at home in the comfy chair!” but I have seen this thing in the wild. When I used to go shooting every weekend in Arizona, I could -always- shoot better than cops who showed up at the range. I’m not that great a shot either. But pistol or rifle, I shot better than any of them. (Police snipers could beat me, thank God.)

                    I recall being at a gun shop in NY when a detective brought in his service revolver, an S&W snubbie. The crane was rusted shut. It took the gunsmith half an hour of penetrating oil and judicious tapping with a brass hammer to get the cylinder to open. Ammunition was stuck in the cylinder, it had to be carefully driven out with a brass rod. The inside of the barrel was rusty too. Taken together, the gun might have hurt him more than what it was aimed at, had it gone off at all. And this was a detective, not a dumb boot in training.

                    I’m never surprised when cops kill people. I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often.

                    1. detective brought in his service revolver

                      Yeah. Reports of this level of God Help Anyone You Have To Defend retardedness are a dime a dozen.

                      As for the skill issues, those are so commonplace that they no longer even merit notice, unless to disabuse someone naive enough to think the police are Just Better at guns than us lowly civvies. And it doesn’t stop there. You could excuse some of it as lack of funding for training, except for the other commonplace reports — including from the trainers themselves — that unless you have a cop who is also a gun guy there is a general profound lack of interest in having even the minimal skill to pass qualification on the first try.

                      And here I was vaguely ashamed that when I took my CCW qualification there were a few shots that were outside the innermost ring…….

                    2. As for the skill issues, those are so commonplace that they no longer even merit notice, unless to disabuse someone naive enough to think the police are Just Better at guns than us lowly civvies.

                      The loudest counters to the idea of “cops are better with guns, just trust them with guns, they’re all trained and stuff” are…. law enforcement.

                      Admittedly, I do associate with a pretty high quality, low BS type who are in law enforcement! (Including my cousin, “Sir, I am not standing on your running board”…)

                    3. Something that has to be pointed out a lot: most cops never have to shoot. Especially not on the job.

                      It’s like the folks who go “Oh, you were in the Navy, so you know (ship stuff)”.
                      Er, there’s some exposure, but I was Air and even if I wasn’t, most of the Navy doesn’t do bosun work.

                      We don’t want to live in a world where most cops have to be good at shooting because they do it regularly on the job.

                    4. Depends, really– a lot of law enforcement shouldn’t even have guns, because their actual job doesn’t involve leaving the office, much less being able to use deadly force.

                      Similar to how not everyone in the Navy gets pistol-qualled, they only get that if they stand armed watches.

                    5. I watched the effect of arming the squirrel cops– I mean, forest service and similar enforcement arms– and the result was not a positive one.

                      Be all for requiring that people be allowed to have their own weapon, but only have the issued weapon if needed for the job. With heavy punishment for stupid stuff like requiring someone to do traffic stops WITHOUT a weapon, since “random run into someone with a warrant” is a very common cause of death.

                    6. a lot of law enforcement shouldn’t even have guns

                      You got that right. I heard about a police academy cadet that shot his girlfriend in the head playing quick-draw in the living room. Which can only happen by doing ALL of the Stupid Shit You Just Don’t Do With A Gun.

                      He wasn’t even kicked out of the police academy. He GRADUATED. He’s probably out there on the beat somewhere RIGHT NOW, still carrying the same gun.

                      But “Only the government can be trusted with guns!”
                      A good Zombie Apocalypse novel is at least as believable as anything we’ve heard out of the ‘Publick Health Authoriteez’ over the last year.

                    7. That just cements them in the “look, look, see? Even professionals shoot innocents, so NOBODY Who isn’t super special trained can be allowed to have a gun!”

                    8. “Find me anything that’s an example like what I just showed you.”



                    9. Usually they point at early reports from an armed-civilian-stopped-robbery story, and ignore that it was later shown that the armed, violent criminal shot people, or that the only shooting victim was from the civilian shooting back an hitting one of the unarmed violent criminals in a pack, unarmed defined as “didn’t have a gun when arrested.”

                    10. Quibble: The 15-25 tear old age range is “young men”, not kids.
                      Even if they all look twelve because the observer has gotten old, and everyone under 30 looks twelve.

                2. If she’s telling the truth, she’s incompetent.

                  If she’s lying, she is trying to hide something.

                  There’s no interpretation that makes her look good.

        3. That is terrible thinking, exhibiting well the problems with Canadian extremism.

          If the government cannot be trusted to execute criminals, then it also cannot be trusted to spare criminals from punishment. Criminals can be used as a military proxy by government officials.

          Individual vigilante killings are not preferable to government executions of individuals after a formal legal process.

          In aggregate, vigilante killings tend to cancel out the crazy prolific vigilantes, and are preferable to placing any trust in a government or legal system that can not be trusted to carry out executions.

          The only reason why this approach isn’t usable right now is that the kind and degree of people in need of killing are such that an organization is probably needed to do the work.

          1. “…a government or legal system that can not be trusted to carry out executions.”

            There -is- no government or legal system that can be trusted to do that. Politics and corruption are always a thing, Bob. That’s the point.

            Vigilantes go straight to the corruption, cutting out the organizational middle man.

            The only method that works is the intended victim executing the perpetrator during the commission of the crime. That way there’s no doubt that justice prevailed.

            That is of course quite forbidden in Canada, victims are legally required to die without resistance here. Anyone who thinks I’m kidding should look up Cameron Gardiner of Collingwood Ontario. He resisted, the poor fool.

            1. There -is- no government or legal system that can be trusted to do that. Politics and corruption are always a thing, Bob. That’s the point.

              As opposed to indivduals.

              *gestures at the long, horrific tradition of witch hunts*

              Which is the gold standard of “vigilante,” in situations without mostly functional legal systems.

              1. I’m in favor of jails, myself. If the government picks the wrong guy and corruptly punishes him, at least in jail he’s still alive and somebody honest can get him out later. It happens often enough to be disturbing.

                Capital punishment is a little too final to trust bureacrats with it. Kind of like euthenasia. Did Grandma -really- need to die due to inescapable suffering? Or was it more that they needed the bed for someone more popular? Or less expensive?

                1. Ignoring for the moment the way that jails function as a hell version of middle school–
                  It happens often enough to be disturbing.

                  Beyond the basis of “once is enough,” what do you base this on?

                  Because I use to think this.

                  Then I went and actually LOOKED at things like the “innocence project.”

                  I looked at their claims like I do scripture– in context.

                  And they failed, massively.

                  No way in hell is “the witnesses to me stabbing the woman in full daylight, in public, are now dead” equal “I am an innocent who was wrongly convicted.”

                  Nor does “We got a mentally ill guy to offer an obviously false confession” do the same.

                  If the innocence projected believed what they claim to believe, they would behave differently. As tey do not, nor do their follwers, I am not willing to bless the deaths which I personally know of because of their claims.

                  When I know of multiple people who died, because of known violent criminals who were released because of charity pleas, but don’t even have a single friend of a friend of a friend with a wrongful execution? Oh, heck no.

                  Conflating it with euthenasia is part of the wrong.
                  “They are such a violent threat, proven by these things, they must be put down” is not even in the same universe as “they are sick or elderly, so kill them.”

                  1. “Beyond the basis of “once is enough,” what do you base this on?”

                    As DNA evidence has improved over the years, many people have been freed from jail based on it. More than a couple dozen, I didn’t look up absolute numbers.

                    Also, various agencies including the ATF and the FBI have been found to pursue “voodoo forensics” and plenty of people walked from those cases.

                    The ATF has a history of falsely representing semi-automatic firearms as being full-auto in court. They did it often enough to be reprimanded for it. I don’t recall the exact case that happened in.

                    Bottom line, if the process of capital punishment was 99% sure, I’d be reluctant. The process is a lot less than 99%. Better to err on the side of lenience. After all, you can always kill a bad guy. Much more difficult to bring a guy back to life if you f-ed up.

                    Euthenasia is currently a thing in Canada, where capital punishment is not. Quite a few horrifying killers like Paul Bernardo who certainly deserve death are still alive. But old ladies with dementia are at risk of being given “end-of-life assistance” or whatever euphemism they’ve come up with to soft-peddle it.

                    In both cases, capital punishment and euthanasia, you have unionized government employees making decisions over life and death with the full power of the Crown backing them up.

                    I don’t think that’s a good idea. How long before a charge of racism or homophobia gets you capital punishment? How long before a healthy real estate portfolio or just being old gets you euthenasia? History shows us it is only a matter of time.

                    1. So you didn’t bother to look deeply at the cases.

                      You were told that they were shown innocent, when in fact additional evidence was enough to upset a court case decades later.

                      After witnesses were dead, in many cases.

                      Euthenasia is currently a thing in Canada, where capital punishment is not.

                      Of course. That’s how it usually goes. Protect the guilty, attack the innocent.

                      Bottom line, if the process of capital punishment was 99% sure, I’d be reluctant. The process is a lot less than 99%. Better to err on the side of lenience.

                      No, you error on the side of inaction– which means their next innocent victim pays the price. And the next, and the next, and the next.

                      There’s still capital punishment. It’s just dished out by those being protected from their victims.

                      Eventually, people will take the law into their own hands– and mobs have a far lower accuracy rate than the criminal justice system.

                  2. Then there’s this utter gem from today. I want you to watch this, and think about these people being given the power of capital punishment and euthenasia. Okay? That’s mostly the type of thing I see that makes capital punishment give me the cold shudders. They’re -assholes-.

                    1. As opposed to the ethical benevolence of dudes strung out on meth?

                      Free will means that you get felon personalities in every population, no matter what you do. People who are wired to enjoy making others suffer.

                      Some cultures embrace that, and are quite horrific to be in, or near. Classic example of unfun neighbors were the Mexica pain cults. Frankly, there have been a lot of societies that sucked to have as neighbors.

                      Basic questions with jails are what currencies of force and politics they are backed with.

                      There are at least three or four competing options.

                      Jails can operate with the backing of a top-down force structure with a monopoly on violence. In theory this is an option, but we don’t have the force structure, and what happens when a felon runs things? The USSR was one case of the last.

                      If you have a court system where jail or execution is authorized by a lay jury, the force backing it can be bottom up or top down.

                      Bottom up force structures can also support posses, vigilantes, etc., if the formal court system is corrupt. But in such cases, lynching is more practical than jail.

                      If the jails are backed by neither bottom up or top down force, letting the criminals out and ruling through them is a temptation to any corrupt official. And if you only jail, and do not execute, there are a lot of violent criminals for them to play around with.

                      What do you do when officials and criminals collude in this way? Well, if you do not execute under any circumstances, maybe you put the criminals and former officials in prison, but they have no incentive not to try again next time.

                      If you do execute, but only under those circumstances, the stress and the unusual circumstances perhaps mean that you will be excessive in carrying the executions out.

                      Gripping hand, maybe whatever security forces don’t capture the folks alive, and the public winks at it.

                      Jail only requires /more/ trust in officials, because the jails do not necessarily have the backing to ignore such stunts.

                      Five years ago, it was reasonable for you not to look at the secondary effects, and then to fail to see that the trade off you think you are making cannot be realized. My feeling is that now you should know better. Intellectually, this might not be reasonable on my part. After all, there are a bunch of judges and defense attorneys who haven’t fully realized that they owe an apology by seppeku. 😛

                2. Yeah, no.

                  Jails are only as secure as the officials in charge of them.

                  ‘Jails are enough’ is talk that can only sound plausible in a peaceful society that a) does not have significant security issues b) does not have serious political issues with certain officials arranging to have large parts of the country burned down by criminal proxies.

                  Letting people out of jail ‘because of covid’ was not a good act.

                  You should damn well understand that your own regime is no more ethical when it comes to burning people out. The apparent reason they have not done so is that y’all are quiet enough that they aren’t aware of opposition.

              2. Uhhhhh, no. Witch hunts are the failure mode of vigilantes. If I don’t get to say that burning kids to death is what government agencies really want to do, rather than that being a case of everything going wrong, then you don’t get to do the same in the other direction.

                The *actual* gold standard of the vigilance committees was to show up the official Law for being incompetent and / or hopelessly corrupt. With the added insult of not going after malum prohibitum.

                Hence why official sources make sure to paint them as unalloyed evil.

                1. Witch hunts are the failure mode of vigilantes

                  No, they are the STANDARD MODE.

                  Based on history.

                  Look, “burning kids to death” (or worse, not picky) is bog standard for witch hunts.

                  In reality, not anti-Christian bigotry.

                  Which is why it is bad.

                  1. Given that witch hunts are a known trait of scads of societies, including many non-Christian ones, yeah.

    3. The first step would entail replacing our current MSM – a task that would be simplified by limiting the current First Amendment doctrine requiring proof of Actual Malice to win a libel action.

      Stop pollution of information flows (e.g., the coming trend to declaring a “climate emergency”) and deprogramming becomes feasible.

      1. We could effect climate change by cutting off some of the hot air coming from DC and academia…

  17. Oh, they change positions, sometimes, but they change it from the top, and then claim they never held the other opinion.

    Or they get REALLY PISSED when you show them saying something else, or can’t figure out why your reaction to “but you use to say this!” is “Yes, then I learned X, Y and Z were actually A, B and C, which changes the result.” Which tends to result in screaming.

  18. So, we want to deprogram them, they want to deprogram us…

    The Deprogramming Wars! 😛

    That could be a truly twisted book (or movie)!

    And of course Larry Correia can’t talk about guns, gun laws, and self-defense. He knows too much! Only those that know nothing can be allowed to discuss Gun Control.

    One pro-gun-control wanker even made that very argument in a comment on Larry’s famous gun-control post — that he knows too much about the subject to discuss it objectively. Because the more you learn, the more you see that ‘gun control’ is bullshit.
    If everybody is thinking the same thing, most of them are not thinking.

    1. [Larry Correia] knows too much about the subject to discuss it objectively.

      I do not think the word “objectively” means what that wanker believes it means.

    1. Yes it is.

      The shepherds are certain that they should not just kill all the sheep, and switch to some other business.

      Obviously, they are wrong.

      1. Like Mrs. Tweedy in Chicken Run?
        “It’s all in yer ‘ead, Mr. Tweedy. All in yer ‘ead!”

  19. I like, when I’m tired, to browse through the #WokeBreakingPoint or various “redpill” hashtags, because it describes what moment changed people’s minds about beliefs they’d previously held. I don’t see a pattern there, except possibly “this particular event I observed was either personal, or it involved something that was important to me, or was on a topic I was a particular expert on.” (I am tired, I typed that as ‘espert’.)

    It’s a lot like art that way: people are bringing their experiences to the interpretation of something, and everyone is going at it differently, and predicting how they’re going to receive it is… very difficult.

    The good news about that is that it means these moments are happening all the time, in many different ways, and that we don’t have to make a concerted effort to do anything other than what we would do anyway; talk about the things that matter to us, the problems we see, the asymmetries and the injustices, and explain our own positions. Someone is going to come to us at the right time, and get from what we’re saying exactly what they need to wake up. Our only duty is not to be silent.

    1. That’s my observation too. The proliferation of those hashtags, and the responses to them, including the snarky, arrogant, and condescending responses tell me that gains are being made. One step, one “unwokening” at a time. And, yes. We must continue to speak out.

  20. About the CDC/mask mandates/beer flu case numbers, they (think Dr. Falsie for ex.) don’t really want to re-evaluate unless it would give them more of the crap they’ve already accomplished. They’ll re-evaluate corona just to tell you there’s more on the way and it’s a way worse/different strain. They’ll tell you that the vaccine may not work for more than 6 months and, that after getting the shot, you still shouldn’t act normal (unless it’s the new normal), because….science. But get the shot anyway because we’re thinking about vaccine passports.

    Everyone needs to get an education on perception management, misinformation/disinformation, history, and how to think for themselves. “Releasing the Bonds”, by Steven Hassan is excellent on how people get indoctrinated and things that can be done to walk it back. Uses cults as a base, but it applies elsewhere.

    Schools have to be drastically changed or taken away from government.

  21. The left does not recognize the possibility of de-programming. If we are are only meat machines, with no spiritual component, obviously a de-programmed person would just sit there, not taking any action. There is only re-programming, substituting one program for another. “Wrong” is evaluated as “not consistent with my current programming”. “think it possible you may be mistaken” is therefor almost sense free to them. Free will – looking and acting outside of your programming, is a spiritual effort. Hence the devaluation of human life, exemplified by the fetus being “only a clump of cells”. And I was totally unsurprised by the extension to post birth abortion. After all, it’s still just a clump of cells, isn’t it?
    I suppose in theory one could program people to do real fact checking and use Occam’s Razor, but I think the real solution is to lead them to realize that they are at least partially spiritual beings and the actions we take in this world echo in eternity.

  22. Give the sheep empty grocery shelves for a week and they will turn into ravening wolves. Who puts food away in case the food supply chain is disrupted and there aren’t any deliveries for a while? Not sheep. My sister, who worked in a very troubled area of an inner city, marveled that the people there were hunter gatherers. They were in the grocery stores or at the takeout places every day. It was as though they had no kitchen or food storage at home at all. (She has since moved to a rural area.)

    The other problem is that sheep have no moral code. They don’t go to church or believe in serving in the military or believe that you should treat others as you wish to be treated. They’re wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing, and I apologize to wolves for the comparison. Their ideas are evil and awful, but they themselves are going to be dangerous when their bellies have been empty for a week. Yeah, I’m worried…

    1. I suspect that if they kept food at home, it would get ‘borrowed’. Crab-bucket poverty, and let no crab climb out of the bucket.

      1. Well, if you’re really poor in the inner city, you probably have pests too. And if rats or roaches are going to eat your food, maybe it’s better not to store it at home.

        1. Oh, and I just learned that apparently you can kill cockroaches or even big tropical roaches by spraying soapy water at them. They say it works pretty quickly, and you end up with a really clean floor, too! Fortunately I have no way to test this, but it sounds like an entertaining way to strike back.

          1. Putting out little containers of boron works too. The roaches get gas and blow up. (Internally, that is. You don’t get little blotches of exploded roaches).

          2. I don’t know about soap in general. But my understanding is that borax (which is used in some cleaners) will turn their stomachs into cement.

        2. Also, some apartments are so tiny that there’s not really a kitchen or full-sized fridge, and minimal storage. Eating out or living on a few staples and take-out is a lot more sensible, short term.

          1. Or a *working* fridge. First post-college apartment had a freezer that managed to suck the flavor out of everything stored in it, no matter the storage method. (This is well before vacuum-sealing bag magic available to home consumers.) It was weird, and it changed our eating habits.

      2. Cooking is work. And it takes time. And then you have to clean up.

        All to be actively avoided in some demographics.

        For that matter, I doubt Obergruppenfuhrer Nancy does much cooking in that model kitchen of hers…

  23. It’ a religion for them. Thus, when reality conflicts with the religion, realty must be ignored or proclaimed to have changed, rather than accept that the result the religion is wrong. Big Brother is always correct. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

    See via NY Post:

    Those who speak out against the religion are punished. Thoughtcrime must be stamped out and the very language changed in order to prevent thoughtcrime from occuring. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Conformity is Diversity.

    I note that in 1984, Goldstein’s book’s actual title referenced “oligarchical collectivism” and the principles of English Socialism (Ingsoc). It is the oligarchical collectivism as envisioned in 1984 that is their roadmap for gaining and keeping power. The only difference is that identity group Marxism has been added as an ingredient to this noxious ideology.

  24. If the experimental vaccines start killing off people over the next few years the situation will resolve itself.
    Those compliant with the present regime will self-sort.

      1. The sticking point will be when they start requiring proof of “the jab” for medical care.

        Kidney stones or mystery shot? Knee replacement or mystery shot? Dental work or mystery shot?

      2. My husband’s partner nearly died from pulmonary embolism a few years ago. She’s terrified of anything that might get into her lungs. She had her second shot today.

          1. There’s not much of a side effect, we’re seeing fewer severe clotting events from the J&J shot in the vaccinated population than we would expect to see in a similarly-sized populations. I think it’s concerns about the AZ vaccine (which has higher numbers but still not, AFIAK, significantly more common than the general population) and a fear of bad publicity.

            There’s also the fact that both of the vaccines with clotting concerns are an adenovirus (cold virus) modified to have the Wu Flu spike protein.

            1. That’s good. I’m still waiting though. I had a fistula made for dialysis and it completely filled with clots. I am not going to take the chance. Plus I’m the person that gets the rare side effects– so I’m very careful with meds, vaccines, and anything else.

                1. I started dialysis the same time as the lockdown. I’ve had problems, (gout etc), but no colds. I’ve done better this year because of it. 🙂

    1. They’re less experimental than many fear—a large amount of the research on them was done in the wake of SARS, only stopping when SARS petered out. They definitely checked for the problems those early ones did (basically the equivalent of a cytokine storm over-reaction) and screened those out. Even the J&J issues they’ve noted are far below the percentage of blood clot risk that birth control has. 😉

      But yeah. I’ve gotten mine, but damned if they want me to use my card as a passport. HIPPA all the way, it’s none of their damned business. (Too many people cannot get vaccinated for perfectly legitimate reasons, and they don’t deserve Nanny State keeping them from the risks they’re willing to take, especially considering The Risks They Didn’t Sign Up For *glares at NY nursing home Cuomo scandal*.)

      1. I will not be vaccinated for a few years, because autoimmune to a level few people have, and the reactions tend to be….. odd.
        BUT I also am not afraid of catching the virus.

        1. I have autoimmune problems as well. It means that doctors treat my problems differently than they would with someone who has a more common disease like diabetes.

        2. Yeah. Anyone who has wonky autoimmune should be careful of vaccines. My husband’s autoimmune is to the level of arthritis that is a valuable gauge for how long a disease actually lasts (seriously, if he’s achy for 12 hours, we know that’s the actual infection period), but it’s nothing like yours.

      2. HIPAA opens your records to any “official” (bureaucrat or law enforcement) with the faintest reason to poke around. Most of the “security” is against
        the wrong people.

    2. I’ve looked at a lot of the discussion and data and my personal belief is that aside from those who recently fought off a Covid infection (a number of elderly folk in that category died shortly after vaccination) and perhaps those with an autoimmune disease (the existing immune system malfunction makes the mrna spike protein production process look potentially risky for those individuals – though of course I have no actual data to back that up) the risk of the vaccine is relatively low.

      However, since I did not contract the WuFlu from my wife, with whom I shared a bed throughout the course of her bout with it, I’m not likely to catch it from more casual contacts so the potential benefit from taking the vaccine is also relatively low.
      Think I’ll skip it for now. My wife will also since she now has natural immunity from fighting off the crud.

        1. And of course they will keep raising alarms about “variants” so that they can retain power:

          The most notable thing about the reports about the variants since after the first day the symptoms of the South Africa variant were publicized is that they meticulously avoid mentioning the severity of illness or the symptoms. The 1 day the SA variant was publicized, it was noted the symptoms were “mild to moderate temperature, cough, sore throat and runny nose”, i.e. the f…king common cold. As soon as people noted that, mention of the symptoms themselves and the severity vanished faster than people in photos of Stalin.

            1. “Therefore, it has been hypothesized: 1) the practice of wearing facemasks has compromised safety and efficacy profile, 2) Both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to reduce human-to-human transmission and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, 3) Wearing facemasks has adverse physiological and psychological effects, 4) Long-term consequences of wearing facemasks on health are detrimental.”

              THIS. GD THIS.

      1. I know someone who was diagnosed with COVID twice, and hospitalized for it both times. And in between, she got the “vaccine.”

        She had a rough few days in the hospital both times, but face it, at 83, diabetic, and end-stage Parkinson’s, she’d have a rough time with almost anything.

    1. The incumbent President of the United States invited them, and the Capitol Police let them in. And the only real violence was a murder committed by one of the official thugs, who they have managed to shield from justice.

  25. “they don’t reevaluate because they can’t”

    I eavesdropped in a coffee shop on a liberal white woman giving some sort of lefty propaganda talk/meeting to a woman from Mexico. It was all about replacing cars with high-speed trains and the Mexican woman (this was in California) asked about the bullet train from LA to San Francisco.

    It was sort of amazing. “Uh, yeah, I guess they had some problems with that”. Pause. “I really loved it in Europe when I could get in a train and go to all those amazing places.”

    I don’t think there is anything that will change the minds of those people, including absolute failure.

    1. I once had to take a break from writing to educate a bunch of college students on why “But they have it in Europe” wasn’t valid for US public transport.

        1. And in a lot of places in Europe, they don’t even let you have a driver’s license until you’re 18 or older, and have passed crazy onerous tests, and probably paid a huge fee and…they’re still effin’ crazy drivers.

          As much as I hate dealing with teenaged drivers here, there’s something to be said for starting ’em young and getting them EXPERIENCE.

          And sure, I enjoyed trains in Europe (at least some of the time) too. And there are times here in the middle of a 9 month winter that I think it would be awfully nice to be able to ride a train for my commute instead of braving the crappy roads and wildlife. But…it’s not practical. If for no other reason than we haven’t got enough population to sustain it here, and no one would be giving up their vehicles (because you need them to get anywhere else), and it would force a lot more planning around a train’s schedule than I’d actually like.

          1. Not to mention the idiots they’d have making up the train schedules.

            Imagine a schedule where the eastbound train left the station two minutes BEFORE the northbound train pulled in — EVERY F’N DAY!!

            Only I didn’t have to imagine. It happened.

            1. Oh the joy, the absolute ecstasy of sitting on the southbound train from Toulouse. In August. No a/c. Just sitting.. and sitting.. and sitting.

          2. K, funny digression.

            Iowa is considering allowing parents to teach their kids to drive, rather than paid professionals. Home schooled kids can already do this.

            The professional driving teacher they had came in and talked about how Iowa is already horribly dangerous and behind the rest of the US because we’re falling short on a ton of metrics, such as allowing any non-professionals to teach driving, and letting kids start learning to drive earlier, and “traffic related accidents.” (Which, I know from Washington, are usually stuff that is either full adults in the driver’s seat, or ATV crashes.)

            Then there were all the calls from folks talking about how terrible drivers in Iowa are…. and my happy little Washington and California tail is sitting here asking what the heck they are high on, because Iowa drivers are INSANELY NICE.
            You signal, and they MAKE ROOM for you to get in safely! People up ahead will see that the lane is ending, and get over– and then slow down so that you, in the van pulling a camper, can get over as well!

            It’s the only place I’ve seen folks routinely SMILE when they do the “no, you first, I insist!” after a full stop at stop signs.

            1. Same in Montana, except where there are a lot of left-coast transplants…. you can definitely see the difference in how they drive.

              As to not letting ’em start til they’re 18… my observation is that’s too late for a lot of people; they have a fear response to being behind the wheel, and can’t get over it like younger kids do. Hmm…

              1. It’s freaking amazing, I can TELL when they’ve sent a bunch of political folks into town because all of a sudden there are like one in fifty folks who are utterly freakin insane.

                Makes me realize WHY Iowa cops have such a reputation for being “horrible” and “nasty”– they pull over the kamikazi drivers.

              2. > too late for a lot of people

                I’ll agree. I saw local driving change a lot after they raised the age from 15 to 18. Now they have some kind of “intermediate” license that will let them drive before 18, but I don’t see any student cars at the local high school. The parking lot there used to look like the one at Wal-Mart.

              3. I had terrible anxiety when learning to drive; it took me years to learn to be at ease with it.

            2. Iowa is considering allowing parents to teach their kids to drive, rather than paid professionals. Home schooled kids can already do this.

              Um, pretty much everyone I know learned how to drive primarily from their parents. Is this new in the last twenty years or so, an attempt to make certain that kids never grow up or achieve any independence?

              1. It seems to be rent seeking.

                Basically we’re supposed to pretend that going to driving school is the real difference between Bad Drivers and Good Drivers– when even the professional driver’s ed teacher had to admit that kids who had involved parents who worked with them on driving were much better drivers.
                That’s when he started ranting about how we’re behind most other states in all the theoretically relevant metrics– which were mostly completely unrelated to actual driving ability, such as requiring people to take a paid driver’s ed class as proof of there being better drivers.

                1. It’s probably insurance companies wanting proof that their drivers are not the ones at fault, in the event.

                2. Sort of like Kalifornia issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens ‘to make them better drivers’.

                  Like that works with American drivers…

                  1. The drivers licenses to illegals that Democratic Party run states seek to issue have nothing to do with driving and everything to do with adding illegal aliens to the voter rolls so they can vote for Democrats.

                3. I did professional driver’s ed back in the Eocene that included time on a skid pad. That saved my bacon a couple of times this February when I drove across the country, including through a major winter storm. Getting the muscle memory of what it feels like when a car is about to lose traction and how to recover is incredibly valuable. In some parts of the country parents can teach that in the school parking lot, but elsewhere you’re probably going to need some professional involvement.

                    1. Learning how to do and how to avoid doing donuts in a snow/ice covered school parking lot for the learn to handle traction issues for the win.

                  1. These schools don’t offer that– it’s just “ride in a car with a professional.”

                    The main argument he had was that “kids learning to drive in the middle of nowhere won’t know how to drive in the city.” Because that’s what he sells. /wry

                    1. Yeah, I can see how parents would struggle with teaching that. /anywryeranditwouldneedpastrami

                  2. So did my kids. We paid an extraordinary amount of money for a defensive driving course for them.
                    Our kids are the ONLY ones of their set, so far, never to be in a major accident. But school wouldn’t have got them that training either.

                    1. It’s probably the same program. I sent my sister some money to cover the cost for her foster teenager.

                    2. Yeah. we paid in installments. For older son we were dead broke. It was started by a race car driver whose kid died in an accident.
                      WORTH EVERY PENNY. Both the boys were in NASTY ice-related incidents the first year they were driving. Both came through unscathed, though older had a small scratch on his bumper.

                    3. I was blessed to grow up in WA with parents who encouraged lots of practice when it snowed, poured rain, wind blew over 40 mph.

                      As soon as it snowed, we got in the car and drove into the worst, plowed things with the front bumper, and did Brodies in the high school parking lot. We knew what it was like to drive into a ditch and then get out, to jury rig fixes when that ditch broke something….

                      Great times.

                    4. There was an ice storm in Denver in the middle of the workday, on a Friday, back in 2002 or 2003. I learned then that I was a better driver on ice than 90% of the folk on the road, because I was scared out of my mind and paying VERY close attention to what my car was doing during the ten miles I had to drive from Englewood to Littleton to pick up my husband. (Call came an hour in to the drive. “Are you okay?” “I’m fine; I’m at a stoplight, I have to go super-slow but I’m on my way.” No chains.)

                      I remember it was a Friday, because we then stupidly went up to the Highlands area for the weekly friends meet up instead of going home to Aurora. But at least we weren’t the only ones, and had a good time with our friends before inching home.

                4. Oregon’s requirement, now, is either:

                  1) Driver’s Ed + 50 hours of logged driving time.


                  2) 100 hours of logged driving time.

                  Supposedly the DMV actually looks at the driving log, as attested to, by signature, of the licensee, plus, if underage, a legal guardian. Note. HaHa … I made the clerk actually look at the log. Not just the signatures. Dang it. It was a PIA to get him to actually log some of the times he drove. Which means, yes, there was way more than the required 600 minutes listed. Note, from the time the kid got his driver’s permit, if he was in the vehicle, he drove. Over a year, that is a lot of minutes. He recorded 120 hours. He drove a whole lot more than that.

                  Our insurance, gave a better discount for teen drivers to watch their safety video + a private discussion with the insurance agent. (Which was essentially “This is what happens to your parents financial situation if you screw up. This is what happens to your life if you screw up.”) They also preferred option #2 above … which is the route we took. The insurance agent, as part of the private conversation, talked about the log. Besides the “took mom to store and back”, less memorable ones, there were some very memorable logs.

                  * To Seattle WA and back for Aunt’s funeral. Kid didn’t drive 100% north, because I wasn’t comfortable with Portland or the approach to Seattle to keep him comfortable enough, so I drove those sections. But south, he drove 100% of the route. Dad was with us then. Kid swapped off with each of us, so he drove 100% of the distance, in two different vehicles, while we got breaks.

                  * To Randle WA and back. Where back was towing the trailer … They surprised me. The note was “Out doing guy things.” The guy thing was going up to pickup the RV trailer hubby had been living in during the “out of area transfer”. He’d been transferred back to Eugene and hadn’t told me. Note, in 32 years of owning an RV, I’ve never driven the vehicle hauling (camper) or towing the RV.

                  * Ice and snow driving. Specifically taken out for parking lot skid learning, by hubby, in 3 different vehicles … Note, I’ve never done this.

                  * Situations where, “Don’t jump a Green”, “Don’t push a Yellow”, were noted as preventing accidents. Plus a couple of, technically ticket triggering defensive driving maneuvers that prevented accidents, no matter how minor.

                  Hubby and I both have “Defensive Driving” coarse, thanks to the USFS. Very little of that was backwoods driving. Most accidents occur getting to the forest roads, not on forest roads themselves. I mean essentially one lane driving on forest roads come down to “Log trucks have the right of way. They are bigger than you are.” and “pay attention to the edges where you pull off and park, regardless of which side.” (Defensive Driving is NOT Security Evasive Defensive Driving.)

                  You can’t evade other stupid drivers 100% the time. But you sure can reduce the odds, a lot.

              2. Even California has something like six hours with paid professional (two at the start and two other sessions) but MUCH more with the parents. Ain’t no way people can afford the bulk of the required time paid for professional teachers. (The required paid professional is only if you get your license below 16. Once you hit 18, the rules change.)

              3. My parents could have been the ones to teach me how to drive (in California), but my high school offered driver’s ed as a PE equivalent for the semester we were turning 16, and it was free. So, I had to deal with Mr. Oliver (he was MEAN).

            3. Unfortunately the ‘you first, I insist’ is a danger. The right-of-way rules are there for -predictability-, and predictability is essential to safety. If you don’t know what the other guy is going to do, you don’t know what you should do.

              1. That depends strongly on the situation, actually.

                If you have a perfectly flat intersection and two roughly equal vehicles, and traffic beyond someone coming in the next five minutes, then yes, the “no, you first, I insist” can be dangerous, though not as dangerous as the “I must pause for an extra three seconds because I can’t take being t-boned by that guy who hit his brake and then went even though I’d been stopped first” AKA the three second pause after a green in cities.

                If you have a tractor with trailer that will have to swerve across all lanes, and there’s one other person in the area who can GO, it’s safer for them to just get gone so the oversized vehicle can go slow and use the whole area.

                …I wonder if part of it is that folks have to actually think about vehicle interactions?
                I’m a ranch kid. “Full loads have right of way” is in my blood– because even if you’re technically right, you will not survive fighting for right of way with a fully loaded simi. You have to THINK.

                1. “you’re technically right, you will not survive fighting for right of way ”

                  Or as my mom used to put it:

                  “I was right, dead right,
                  As I sped along,
                  But I’m just as dead
                  As if I’d been wrong.”

          3. And what happens *coughFrancecough* when the government decides that there’s not enough usage in your town and moves the bus stop and cancels the train? You now get to walk three km to and from the edge of town to the bus stop, to go to a larger town, to catch the train.

            And some idjit had the gall [pun intended] to argue on-line that freedom of movement is not a right, but a privilege granted by the government. Not on this side of the Pond, bucko!

          4. As much as I hate dealing with teenaged drivers here, there’s something to be said for starting ’em young and getting them EXPERIENCE.

            Driving is mostly habit and muscle memory..
            You’re not going to make better drivers by delaying the start of when they can begin to develop those.

            The only thing you’re going to get is 18, 19, and 20 year olds who drive as well as 15 and 16 year olds do now.

            1. Do not get me started on Washington State and “don’t let kids EVER be where they can see anything useful until they’re 13.”

              Because “safer”. Based on stats that were 90% “where they found the bodies of kids who were not secured during the crash.” (the front seat; they didn’t start there, as any sensible thought would figure)

              I have been listening to my mom doing critique of other folks’ driving since I was able to hear.
              MY KIDS will critique my driving, the eldest is going to be 12. Sometimes they are right, mostly they are wrong but have the right idea, and sometimes I have to explain “this is the less bad of the bad options.”

              1. Do not get me started on Washington State and “don’t let kids EVER be where they can see anything useful until they’re 13.”

                Preventing children from learning anything about or interacting with the real world for as long as possible has been the Official Mainstream Parenting Philosophy for decades.

              2. > I have to explain “this is the less bad of the bad options.”

                That’s giving them a head start *everywhere*, not just for driving.

                I’ve run into too many younger people in the workplace who, when no “perfect” solution was apparent, just gave up. This is apparently because modern “education” promotes one, and only one, correct answer for any problem. Which I guess makes it simple for grading, but I suspect their students are learning a different lesson from what’s taught.

                1. Sort of– schools have trained them that if there isn’t a clear option, it’s a trick question, and getting it wrong will be viciously punished.

                  1. I’m always surprised by how many “kids” your age and older (to about 40) and down to my kids ages (10 years younger than you) when they KNOW I’m utterly safe decloak and their beliefs are somewhere between conservative and Libertarian.
                    BUT parents, employers, the older liberals surrounding them? All think the kids are SJWs. Because the kids learned double thinking and hiding.
                    I suspect that’s why the idiots had to fraud in full light of day.
                    And it’s another reason I don’t want a boog, though it might be too late to avoid.
                    I — artsy, female, with an accent — am at risk of friendly fire. These kids, who are often urban and present trendy? They’ll be dead.

                    1. Yep, because of the circular arguments.

                      They must be enemies, so I will shoot them; how do I know they’re enemies? Because there are non on our side. Why are there none on our side? Because we know they’re enemies, so we shoot them….

                      Part of why I have no respect for much of the Men’s Right movement is because I watched too many of the loud mouths flip backwards as soon as I mentioned I was female. Then, suddenly, I must be an enemy– even though literally nothing had changed. The exact same facts, the exact same statements, which were previously agreed with were suddenly not just wrong but mock-worthy and evil.
                      Which sucks, because there were many good points made, and accurate arguments– but facts matter.

      1. CalTrans spent two months turning two intersections near my house into tiny roundabouts.

        Just because the British do something, does not make it a good idea!!

        1. roundabouts are in fashion here in Ontario too. All kinds of new developments are built with these bloody great traffic circles in them. Huge waste of space, and they make driving a nightmare. I hate them a lot.

          1. I hate roundabouts enough that if I can go out of my way to avoid the damn things… I do so.

            Someone in the road design business once pointed out that roundabouts don’t exist because they’re better for traffic; they exist because Europeans can’t be arsed to obey traffic signals, and it was either this or permanent gridlock.

            Oh, and they’re just ALL KINDS OF FUN where the winter road is routinely wet-and-icy. I have personally seen two collisions in 30 seconds (at 5mph) because having to needlessly turn while moving on ice was enough to break tires loose from traction, and then you just keep on sliding til you hit something.

            A few years back India actually removed a bunch of big-city roundabouts and replaced ’em with normal four-way intersections. because INDIA, land of rules-what-rules?? found roundabouts made for MORE collisions.

            Yeah, rarely they solve a traffic problem. More often they create backups (and confusion) where none formerly existed.

            HATE ‘EM.

            “Europe does it” should be a warning label.

              1. Great minds rant alike. 😀

                There’s an exceedingly stupid roundabout in the Boise area (in the middle of nothing much and very little traffic, so WHY?) … on a truck route that goes to a bunch of feed mills and the like. They made it too small for 18 wheelers to make the turns, so now all the big trucks have to go miles out of their way to the next spot with a railroad crossing that goes to the road on the other side of the tracks.

                Also, the damn things prematurely wear out trailer tires because of the extended tight turn.

                1. There is a small roundabout here in $HOOTERVILLE now, which replaced a traffic light setup (that didn’t qualify for aid to keep as such…). The design is small to fit in the space there is. There is a central ‘bump’ but just that – the idea being that semis CAN treat it as a stop and then drive over the bump, straight through. I have no idea how well that part actually works. As it’s the ONLY roundabout in town and the pass-through is faster (in all cases, it seems) than the lights, it seems to at least be a not-loss. Mind, if the other lights were also replaced thus, it would get sorely annoying very quickly. A smaller nearby town has a set of three almost in a row and that is quite irksome.

                  1. There was one of those in my town, oddly enough at the entrance to a park, but they took out the bump and put in a stop sign. Now there’s just an odd curve to the curb.

          2. Around here they were quite popular for a time until someone realized that ambulances and fire trucks couldn’t manage to get through them…

          3. They can actually work very well.

            Short version for “how,” when they’re big enough to have a FREAKING PARK in the middle, they work great and give green space.

            Now go and try to apply that to existing places!

            1. Yeah, they’ve put a couple in part of the city that is still semi-rural, and the intersections have shifted from “highly dangerous” to “occasionally idiotic”, which is a huge improvement. Nice wide circles, not itty-bitty bump-in-the-middle roundabouts.

            2. In Carcassonne, close to the Gare, is a roundabout the size of a manhole cover. I kid you not. Two one-way streets and two two-way streets converge on this tiny roundabout. I’ve circumnavigated bigger potholes.

        2. I was in Florida in the 1990s, in a small town that had bought into the “all hail the holy roundabout!” program.

          The brainiacs in the highway department that designed and approved them apparently didn’t consider that vehicles larger than a Smart Car would have to negotiate them. As in, pickup trucks with trailers, motorhomes, and 53-foot rigs. There were tire marks on the curbs and the decorative shrubbery was pretty much wrecked where vehicles didn’t have enough paved area to make the turns into and out of the rotaries.

          Some of the larger trucks were going straight across the island in the middle. Rather than fixing the turns, they were blowing their budget on putting concrete barricades up to those who were flaunting their authoritay.

          I asked who had the right of way, the cars merging or the cars in the rotary? The resident told me that the highway department hadn’t published an official rule on that yet, so it was pretty much hope and intimidation.

          1. WTF? There’s only ONE correct answer to the right-of-way question, and that’s “the cars in the rotary have the right-of-way, period.” Doing it the other way has the potential of leading to gridlock: if the traffic circle fills up, and everybody has to yield to someone trying to enter but that person can’t enter because there’s no room because the traffic circle fills up, then you have a failure condition that’s easy to reach during busy traffic. But if the traffic in the circle has the right of way, then even during busy times of day there will be traffic moving through, because the people in the circle can always reach their exit.

            However, during busy times of day a traffic circle has the potential to cause a semi-gridlock state even if the traffic is following the correct right-of-way rule. Because that rule essentially means that as you’re entering the circle, you have to yield to the people entering from the road “before” yours: if you’re on incoming road 2, the people on incoming road 1 will be entering the circle and therefore have right-of-way over you by the time they reach you. So if ten cars are backed up watiing to enter at road 1, and ten more cars are waiting at road 2, then road 2’s cars won’t get to enter the circle until all ten of road 1’s cars have entered it and road 1 has no more backup. If road 1 is constantly being fed a stream of cars coming from, say, a heavily-used highway exit, road 2 is going to back up and never get through the circle at all. That’s why for heavily-trafficked intersections, a traffic light is better, because it ensures that road 2 will never have to wait longer than a minute or two before they get their turn to go. (Unless the traffic backs up to the point where you have to wait through multiple red lights before you reach the intersection, and even then you know that you’ll get there eventually.)

            I keep seeing studies showing that traffic circles allow a higher rate of traffic flow than four-way stops. If those studies are correct, then traffic circles do make sense at less-trafficked intersections, because most of the time you won’t have to stop and you can just drive “straight” through, saving you time. But two things are required for the traffic circle to be a time saver: 1) you must have low enough traffic that you don’t end up with backups on the incoming lanes for longer than half a minute or so, and 2) you must, MUST, MUST! have the “traffic in the circle has right=of-way over incoming traffic” rule in place (and signs posted to that effect at every entering roadway) or else you can easily hit gridlock during rush hour.

            1. In support:
              Standard rules of the road, vehicles in the route have right of way; vehicles leaving the route have secondary, vehicles entering have third.

              1. Yep. I grew up in France, where all the roundabouts had signs, visible as you sat in the incoming traffic lanes, saying something like “traffic in the circle has the priority” (in English we’d say “right of way” where French uses “priorité”). I later learned that the rules in roundabouts used to be “yield to vehicles coming from the left, just like in normal intersections when there’s no stop sign” (America tends to not use that rule very much, and just put stop signs at every single intersection, but in France it’s normal for intersections in small residential streets to have no stop signs and just use “yield to traffic coming from the left” as the standard rule. That changed, in the 50’s IIRC, because traffic planners started to figure out that that rule, in roundabouts, ended up meaning “traffic in the circle must yield to incoming traffic” and that has great potential for causing gridlock (“roundlock”?) in the roundabout during heavy traffic conditions.

                1. Hamster wheel lock?


                  Here in the U.S. the vehicle on the right has right-of-way; you have to stop if the other vehicle is to your right.

                  1. I might be misremembering it and the vehicle on the right (not left) has right-of-way in France, too. But my memory says it’s the same side as the side the steering wheel is on, i.e. the left, because you don’t have to turn your head as far to see the traffic coming in in that direction. (And also, the traffic coming from your left is the traffic you’ll encounter sooner as you enter the intersection, whereas the traffic coming from the right is the traffic you’ll encounter only after you’ve crossed half the intersection already.) However, I also thought that the rule was the same in the US as in France (though rarely used since the US tends to put stop signs at every four-way intersection), and if you’re correct about the US rule, then I’m wrong about the latter.

                  2. In my state, that specifically applies only to four way stop signs. And unless they’ve added something recently, the Vehicle Code doesn’t mention roundabout sat all. Until very recently, the only one I was aware of in the entire state was in Hot Springs National Park, which is Federal.

                2. This is one of the things my parents taught me, but the (admittedly totally incompetent) Driver’s Ed teacher couldn’t.

            2. You should see the backup that happens when the roundabout is on the main school bus route… Nampa, Idaho… every day, backed up as far up that street as you can see (about a mile), and a couple blocks in the other directions due to busses taking relatively a long time to make the turn.

              Another problem is that little cars can negotiate ’em so much faster that anything largish doesn’t have TIME to turn into a busy circle, and if they do, risks getting broadsided by someone they couldn’t see through all the crap they like to plant in the middle. More of a problem with the bigger ones where little cars need not slow down at all.