Imagine it – we’re two and a half years out from the event.

They knew exactly who every single one of these people was within hours.

The Capitol has thousands of cameras. And unless you don’t have a driver’s license, the FBI has your biometrics, and can identify you with CCTV footage. Frankly, they probably have your biometrics even if you never had your photo taken for a driver’s license or other state ID (but that would obviously be a very small group of people).

Furthermore: cellphone companies turned over the data of every phone that was in the Capitol that day. It could be a larger group of people who would not bring their phones with them that day, but it would still be a small percentage of people – it would be particularly small among the people who thought it was a good idea to enter the Capitol when the cops were waving them in (these people are not the cleverest bunch, sadly).

But they are claiming that they are still investigating this, still tracking down new “rioters”? They are claiming they needed the help of “online sleuths”? And the media is going along with it, not pointing out the fact that it would be impossible – no matter how incompetent they are – to have no had everyone identified in hours (it’s just computers – the computers do the work).

What sort of absurd charade are they engaged in here?

NBC News:

A Capitol rioter known to online sleuths as “Shield Grampy” — a reference to his age and his use of a police shield during the battle at the lower west tunnel on Jan. 6, 2021 — has been arrested by the FBI, according to court documents.

Anthony Mastanduno, who was No. 397 on the FBI’s Capitol Violence website, was charged with a variety of federal crimes, including assaulting law enforcement. The FBI said he used a stolen police shield to assault officers, as well as a baton and a blue pole.

Well, if he’s on video actually committing a real crime – which was the case for only a very tiny fraction of a percent of the people arrested, as virtually all any of them did was walk into the Capitol building after the police invited them – then it makes it all the stranger they would wait this long.

If they have video of him stealing a cop’s shield, baton, and blue pole, and beating cops with it, it would have made a lot more sense to make him the center of attention than the QAnon Shaman, who literally did nothing wrong.

The FBI found that Mastanduno’s publicly accessible Facebook page included an image of the “Trump 2020 Keep America Great!” hat that he appears to have worn to the Capitol, which included a patch on the bill “containing half of an American flag and half of the Marines insignia.” His Facebook page also including a post: “Biden has not won anything under the electors in December then. and only then he will have won/stole.”

…

After it contacted Mastanduno’s employer, the FBI said, it learned he had been absent from work on Jan. 6 and Jan. 7.

Federal authorities have charged roughly 1,100 of the more than 3,000 people who could ultimately face charges in connection with the attack on the Capitol. Online “Sedition Hunters” have identified hundreds of rioters who have not yet been arrested by the FBI. The statute of limitations on most of the crimes committed that day expires in about 28 months, in January 2026.

This entire farce is another one of these shit-tests from the government.

“Let’s all pretend to believe in something that doesn’t make any basic sense, and it will unite us against people who believe things based in reality.”

It’s that, and also, presumably, a celebration of how stupid the government’s own supporters are. I try not to mention 1984, because everyone references it and it was become cliche. But so many observations remain pithy. In the book, the government did both things:

• Had people pretend to believe that obviously false things were true because the government said so, and
• Celebrated and encouraged low level moronism.

It’s also sending a message that nothing is ever over, and they can come for anyone whenever they want. This “ongoing raids” thing creates a general sense of fear. Further, it keeps the event in people’s minds – remember that still today, they are arresting 100-year-old Wehrmacht soldiers and random Nazi secretaries and charging them with mass murder.

Then you have the fact that it shows that the FBI is totally out of control, completely subservient to the Democrat agenda, which is intended to strike fear in its enemies.

The organization should be abolished. It must be abolished. It is more extreme than the KGB ever was. They are reaching towards the levels the NKVD was at before the war in terms of totally out of control domestic “intelligence.”

Quite frankly, following the coronavirus hoax, all cops should be abolished, save the Sheriff, who is an elected official and enforces the law only with the popular authority behind him. Sometimes I feel bad that sheriffs and their deputies get grouped in with the rest of these savages.

We should remind you: less than a year before the FBI became the heroes of the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party was calling for cops to be abolished. It’s logical enough – both positions served their interests at the time. But anyone on the right who believes that Democrats and their supporters believe in anything other than absolute power should be berated and humiliated relentlessly. I’m sick of hearing about how they’re Marxists or communists or anarchists or whatever. They are not anything. Ideology is a tool of Jews to be used to explain away actions which do not make sense in and of themselves.

Meanwhile, conservatives are still running around talking about their ideologies. They do it nonstop. They call it “our values.”

Ideology is retarded.

Trump side-stepped ideology by talking common sense, which is why he was so popular (even though no one could explain that). The Jews freaked out immediately over Trump, because he was just saying “look, let’s just do what makes sense,” without paying tribute to “conservative principles.”

Andrew Yang did this in 2020, and Vivek Ramaswamy is doing it now. As Nick Fuentes said in a show this week, these Asians and Indians who made it into this country and got rich and now want to become the new elite don’t care about all of the baggage that whites are obsessed with, and that is why they are capable of having these huge viral campaigns – they just talk sense, talk about fixing things.

What ideology did was strip people of the language to say what is actually happening, and to say what they actually want to happen. The biggest (or at least most relevant) part of contemporary “conservative ideology” is that they are not racists, sexists, homophobes, or anything else. This makes it so they have to speak in code, and lie to their own selves. They’re now saying they’re not really transphobic either. The explanation for this is “conservative values say that everyone is an individual, so we can’t ever talk about groups.”

These ideologies are all just cults. Sometimes or maybe a lot of times I agree with conservatives or libertarians on issues, but the fact that they lock themselves down, agreeing to play by stupid rules that the left laughs at, means they can never win anything.

Dropping Ideology is Obvious

I’ve had conversations where people have told me “but you have to have an ideology – everyone has an ideology!”

This is totally false. You do not need an ideology, and most of the world does not govern based on ideology – let alone multiple ideologies. (Arguably, the remaining communist states – such as North Korea – govern by ideology, but they are one-party states. When you have multiple ideologies, politicians can just pick and choose the worst parts of each. I will never forget the Jew Chuck Schumer claiming that giving Trump 4 billion for the Wall would be fiscally irresponsible.)

What you need in place of an ideology is goals for what you want society to look like. Ideology makes the means the goal. You need solid goals, like “I want a healthy social order without homeless people and mental illness and suicide, which is good for families” and “I want a religious society where government policy is in line with the Bible.” Then, once you establish those goals, you work to implement them, by any means necessary.

Different kinds of problems have different kinds of solutions. Ideology creates a situation where no one ever has to come up with a strategy for solving a problem, because the ideology automatically says what they are obligated – as if by some sort of oath – to do. The conservatives believe in “personal liberty,” and therefore have to allow trannies, and can’t ever consider how trannies affect society. All they can do is appeal to the ideology that when you turn 18, you magically are instilled with “consent.” So then, after having accepted that trannies have some right to exist (or rather, pretend to exist) because of “personal liberty,” they allow the left to move around and form their own counter argument as to why they have a right to the kids.

Viz:

• You accept that trannies exist (a soul can be trapped in the wrong body somehow).
• Therefore, children can be trannies (because if this is a soul-displacement, the soul is displaced from birth).
• Therefore, children have a right to access tranny materials and consider whether or not they are trannies.
• Therefore, children have a right to embrace the tranny identity.
• Therefore, tranny children have a right to take hormones and have surgeries, because doing this stuff before puberty is the only way they will ever be able to pass as the opposite sex.
• Therefore, parents who do not allow their children to become trannies and get injections and surgeries are engaged in a form of terrible abuse.
• Therefore, the government has the right to take the tranny kids from anti-tranny parents and turn them into trannies at government facilities.

Do you see how this works? It all starts from this ideological principle that “individual liberty” means you have to allow people to do whatever they want sexually, and accept their “identity.”

If the right were to say “I don’t believe in trannies at all, and anyone who thinks they are a tranny is mentally ill, and should be getting psych treatment rather than hormones and surgeries,” you’d have arguments for an agenda, and you’d be looking at strategies to implement the agenda.

But if you say “I’m not a transphobe and believe some people are trans” and then say “but I’m against it for kids,” you are, by your own logic, abusing children. If trannies exist at all, and the current medical treatment is valid, then the left is right and they should start hormones before puberty.

Christianity has historically been extremely intellectual, and it has been philosophical. Ideology was a way to undermine and replace philosophy with a retarded new system of looking at the world, that was fit for stupid peasants. Typically, the government didn’t go to peasants and say “so what do you think we should do?” It’s actually lunacy, if you think about it for 15 seconds.

Peasants could obviously complain when they didn’t like something, and they could protest, and they could send representatives to speak to the Lord or the King about their grievances. But for the most part, peasants had little interest in the workings of government.

It was a scam to bring all of these peasants into the public process of government. That’s what “democracy” is. And when you brought them in, you couldn’t then expect them to understand philosophy, because they are not intellectual, and primarily think about sex, food, and entertainment. But ideology literally allows you to memorize solutions to every problem, no matter how complex.

You can go on down the list, and explain how every lunatic thing that is happening in the West is a result of this system of ideologies, which creates a total roadblock to anyone attempting to establish a plan for how society should actually work.

There are still conservatives opposing abolishing the FBI on the basis that “we need law and order.” The consideration that the FBI is a totally lawless organization cannot penetrate the thick layer of fat between their skulls and their brains.

“The FBI stops terrorism,” they will say. Firstly, that isn’t true, but secondly, the only reason you have terrorism is because you allowed Islamic immigration. And you allowed Islamic immigration, because “all races are the same and everyone is an individual and people have a human right to come to America to try to make a better life for themselves, as long as they do it legally” (all Moslems came here legally, through lunatic “diversity lottery” visa programs).

When Trump had the election stolen from him in 2020, many Republicans said “it’s our values to believe in the elections” – implying that even if the election results were the result of fraud, you had to believe it, because part of the ideology is that elections can’t be fraudulent because of the Constitution. Ron DeSantis recently said this, so it’s not just the fringe left-leaning part of the GOP that believes it.

It’s hopeless, my dear brothers in Christ.

The system is much too broken for hope to play a factor in your analysis of the future of this state.

The only hope can come from the possibility that the Russians and the Chinese will displace the American “Anal Empire” and that the tyrannical US government will no longer have the resources to do these abuses it is doing. It is only massive excess wealth that allows the government to maintain this war against the natural order.

A “dystopia” is the opposite of a utopia. All ideologies seek to create a utopia, which is why all ideologies eventually lead to a dystopia, if they are fully implemented. (Ideology is a relatively new concept, and thus far, no ideology has been fully implemented.)

The word is generally associated with science fiction, but it is more and more being used to describe the virus regime, as no other term quite works.

I recently noted that Sandy Cortez used the term “dystopian capitalist nightmare” whilst stumping for the Jeff Bezos $15 minimum wage agenda.

I was interested to see who else in the media had used the term “dystopia” before the dawn of the virus regime, and what the context was.

Look at this:

That is the New York Times, last year, promoting the idea that Donald Trump of all people was going to create a police state – and that it would be “dystopian.”

The piece is written by Philip Atiba Goff, who is a… professor of policing equity.

Goff is a quadroon, and given the surname and his behavior, I would assume that most of the remaining 75% of his genes are Jewish. He might actually just be a Mexican pretending to be a quadroon so he can hustle that college money.

That’s just whatever. No one is going to read this article past the first two paragraphs anyway, because it is clearly a stupid conspiracy theory masked in crude, insulting psychobabble. The content of it is the claim that Donald Trump was, last year, creating a plan to encourage cops to murder black people on purpose.

What’s important is the headline, which I assume, unlike the article, a lot of people read.

This was published on October 20 of last year. Imagine it. After the lunatic coronavirus hoax had been going for the better part of a year, with people locked in their houses, and then Antifa/The Blacks had burned down virtually every city in America with the police standing by watching, this guy comes out and says Donald Trump is creating the real dystopia.

Now, we’ve got Joe Biden, and…

Literal dystopian police state.

From what I’m hearing, it’s not just the national Capitol, but capital cities all around the country that are now deploying military for supposed “counterterrorism.”

It is truly “dystopian” in the actual sense of the word, given that there is literally no threat. They are claiming that there is a secret underground group of QAnoners and Proud Boys that is planning to – to what? To launch a physical takeover of the government?

That’s on top of the fact that you already have the Party Police going into people’s houses and preventing them from gathering together.

None of this has anything to do with black people, who proved they are an actual threat that would warrant a police state when they burned down all of those cities. It’s all related to a bizarre theory that the media has presented.

As a reader noted regarding the fact that only 28% of whites (AKA “unmarried white women”) believe George Floyd was “murdered”:

Antifa-BLM terrorized every major American city, in addition to towns and suburbs, from late May through September. They injured thousands, murdered hundreds and lit fire to anything within reach. Neither the police or national guard ever used live rounds on the assailants. Fortune 500 companies and elected government officials bailed them out and praised their actions. The judiciary refused to press charges. The media claims this event did not take place.

On January 6th 2020 a few hundred Trump voters protested in front of the capital building. Capitol police told them to come inside. Once inside the protestors vandalized the building. 4 Trump protestors die, one having her neck blown out. This event is portrayed as 9/11. The media runs FBI mugshots of normal, wholesome Americans 24/7. Everyone arrested is charged. The arrested are treated like enemy war combatants.

Imagine that now, there actually is a dystopian police state, and the same people promoting the fantasy of a Trumpian police state support this current police state – because of a different fantasy.

What is difficult to come to terms with is this: the left, the media, the Jews and their supporters literally do not care about facts. They literally only care about their agenda, and they will make up any fantasy that supports their agenda.

How can they have an agenda if they don’t care about facts?

Well – you’re looking at it.

Seattle radio host Jason Rantz has released documents from a homeless shelter run by the government of the city that instructs heroin addicts how to stick heroin up their anal cavities. The instructions appear on a printed paper, apparently posted on a wall at the shelter.

NEW: A Seattle-backed homeless shelter is instructing addicts to smoke heroin & inject drugs rectally. And the shelter is using tax dollars to help get addicts high, buying heroin pipes & syringes, & giving out so-called "booty bumping kits."https://t.co/9Fid30V5QZ

— (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) February 22, 2021

Now, you might think: “oh sure, more stuff with sticking things up anuses – imagine my shock.” However, sticking drugs up the anus is a relatively standard behavior of hardened drug users. I remember being a teenager in the 1990s, when the ecstasy craze was going on, and people would brag about sticking those pills up their anuses, because it showed they were hardcore. Also, women would talk about it, presumably for the purpose of titillating male victims of millennial youth culture.

According to the documents obtained by Rantz, which one has to believe the shelter did not expect to appear on the internet, they are also providing people with heroin pipes, as smoking heroin is, according to them (and maybe objectively, I don’t know), a safer alternative to injection.

Although the shelter refers to these as “Heroin pipes” in their announcement (actually it’s fentanyl, which I will explain shortly), they also describe crack pipes as being available. As is widely known, white people prefer opioids, and blacks prefer crack cocaine.

Note that used to be called “heroin addiction” is now generally called “opioid addiction,” as most of the heroin is now in a synthetic form called “fentanyl.” Fentanyl was designed and distributed by a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, a drug company run by a man named Alex Gorsky.

It was initially marketed as a way to stop using heroin. There was something called a “fentanyl patch,” which was marketed as the heroin addict version of a nicotine patch, designed to help you kick the addiction to cigarettes. Quickly, people started opening up these fentanyl patches and smoking the innards. Eventually, it was realized that this fentanyl was much cheaper than heroin, which has to be grown in a field in Afghanistan and then processed, as it can be made in a relatively simple lab. The needed dose is also much smaller, in terms of weight.

Here is an image showing the average dose sizes of each:

Thus, there is really no such thing heroin addiction anymore, as everyone has switched to fentanyl, because it is so much cheaper. This has also led to an increase in overdoses, for the simple logistical reason that it is so much easier to accidentally do too much when you’re dealing with doses that are too small to be measured on most scales we all remember our high school drug dealers using to meter out weed.

It is typically “cut” with something, that is to say, mixed with a benign substance such as aspirin so that the volume is larger and it is easier to measure the dose. However, in such a case, you are trusting whoever did the cutting to have done the job properly (mixed the right amount and mixed it evenly enough that you don’t have chunks of fentanyl popping up in the mix). It is so cheap, that the drug dealers aren’t particularly concerned about accidentally giving you too much of it, and drug dealers are not known to be particularly ethical. There is the old adage of “drug dealers don’t want to kill off their own customers,” but you are still dealing with the fact that most of the street level dealers are not going to be especially intelligent.

It is being produced in some amount in the usual places of Latin America. Latin America has the drug dealing networks set up for cocaine, which is produced exclusively in South America due to the fact that its source product needs to be grown naturally in a field. As we all saw in the show Breaking Bad, Mexican and other Central American drug gangs quickly became involved in the production of crystal meth when that became popular with American homosexuals and out of work coal miners.

The general consensus is that much of the fentanyl is also being shipped through the US Mail from China. I don’t know if this is actually true, given the hesitancy that the Chinese have with addictive drugs (opioids in particular), and it seems like it could be more war propaganda. But it might be true.

When Donald Trump accused China of this, the Chinese denied it. Of course, they would deny it, but it is difficult for me to believe that with the amount of money China is making from legitimate business, they would want to risk getting involved with dealing in addictive drugs.

However, it doesn’t really matter where it is coming from, given that it is so easy to produce and so small that it can easily be hidden in any package, and it is virtually impossible for a dog to sniff it. It is also so cheap that even if 98% of packages were seized in the mail, the people distributing it would still have a huge profit margin.

This is to say: there is no way to stop the flow of this drug. It is something we are going to have to live with the existence of, in the same way we live with the existence of other dangerous things such as cleaning products and trans fats. Drug addiction is not primarily a matter of supply, it is a social disease. The Seattle homeless shelter telling people how to do fentanyl “more safely” is a sign of just how much of a pandemic the social disease of opioid addiction actually is.

As you may know, Ohio is one of the hardest hit places for the opioid epidemic. Growing up in Ohio in the 1990s and earth 2000s, it felt like whoever runs these drugs and runs the drug culture (it certainly isn’t organic) was doing a dry run for what has now overtaken the entire country. So, I have some knowledge of heroin addiction.

There is only one tried and true solution to this addiction: you lock a person in a room, with a toilet for about a week. About a week is all it takes to cleanse the body of the physical addiction to these drugs. They will have a very bad week, but after that week, they will no longer suffer from a crippling urge to inject, smoke or insert fentanyl into their asshole.

Tapering off using lighter forms of opioid drugs, such as oxycodone or codeine, is possible. It just take a level of willpower that most people unfortunately do not have. That is why the obvious and immediate solution to the drug problem is to build jail cells for these people, and lock them in them for a week. If you want to make it more nicey-nice, then ensure that they have a TV, video games and/or books. If you wanted to go overboard with the niceness, you could also give them non-opioid narcotics, such as Xanax or Valium to help them sleep. Add to that “comfort foods,” junk food type snacks, and you’ve gotten about as nicey-nice as you can get.

Whatever the niceties, they have to be locked in a cage, preferably alone, for a week. This should be the punishment for anyone caught with these drugs, if it is determined they are not selling. (Yes, I am actually against the long-term incarceration of drug addicts, it is one of the only things I do genuinely agree with modern left on.)

It’s gonna be a helluva week, whatever their comforts, but there has never been a clearer case of the ends justifying the means.

A Bigger Problem

A week in a cage to break the physical dependence means nothing if you don’t deal with the underlying issues causing the problem.

We obviously don’t have reliable information on drug usage, as people are often dishonest about it. However, we can be pretty certain of overdose deaths. In 2018, according to Kaiser family foundation, two-third of the opioid deaths were men. Given the gender differential in math skills, a woman is much more likely to end up overdosing than a man. Furthermore, the main reason a woman is going to end up using addictive drugs is that a man she is involved with is using them. All things being equal, women tend to only do “party drugs,” such as cocaine and ecstasy (these drugs are dangerous, but do not create crippling addiction).

Opioid addiction is primarily a male problem. More specifically, it is a white male problem.

Drug addiction does not exist in a vacuum. Yes, it is possible to get addicted to prescription pain killers, and end up injecting fentanyl. But this is almost only going to happen to someone who has serious other problems in their life.

If we’re talking about men, those problems, typically, are going to be with two issues:

1. Women
2. Work

Men who have a stable marriage and good work do not typically become drug addicts. Again, we don’t have good numbers, but I would be shocked if it was any more than one in thousand opioid addicts that developed the addiction while in a situation with a stable family and work situation. It is statistically negligible.

Therefore, we are looking at the same problem we are always looking at: we are looking at the fallout from the collapse of the American family, which is itself a result of the abandonment of the working and middle classes of this country by the ruling elite.

And though I almost hate to say it at the end of an essay of this sort, it also relates to the Jewish problem. In the 1950s, a group of Jewish academics called “The Frankfurt School” (sometimes called “The Institute of Social Research”) published a document called “The Authoritarian Personality.” I don’t say that this was “Jewish” in the way someone might say “Hollywood is Jewish” or “the media is Jewish.” The Frankfurt School was Jewish in the way that the Anti-Defamation League is Jewish, or the way a synagogue is Jewish.

The Authoritarian Personality was published by the the American Jewish Committee.

The text claimed that the rise of Adolf Hitler was a result of the existence of the nuclear family. The underlying assumption, which appears to be factually true, is that a society where people feel a strong identification with their father as an authority figure, is likely to view a national leader as a kind of extension of their father’s authority. A belief in God is also a part of that equation.

Basically, the natural understanding of a man is this:

• He is the boss of his wife and children
• In the same fashion, the national leader is his boss and the boss of everyone else in his nation
• In the same fashion, God is the boss of the leader

Furthermore, the Jews assumed, presumably also factually, that a society that has a father-like authoritarian leader will be much less tolerant of Jews and their behavior than a society that does not have a father-like authoritarian leader.

Therefore, these Jews argued, in order for Jews to thrive within Western society, the nuclear family would need to be abolished.

Everything that you have witnessed, beginning with the social revolutions of the 1960s, has been geared towards disincentivizing and ultimately destroying the nuclear family. If you just take a look at the last 70 years of development of Western society, which we can now look back on from 30,000 feet, you can see that all social developments were geared towards this end.

Look at it:

• Female empowerment
• Sexual liberation
• Racial mixing
• Mass immigration
• Normalization of homosexuality
• Transsexualism
• Virus hysteria

These have been the focus of our society, and all of these have the ultimate end of disincentivizing normal human family formation.

Imagine for example the legal concept of “no fault divorce.” Why would you allow something like this in your society? Is there any conceivable reason, save for a desire to harm the natural family?

We are men, but men remain mammals. We have a natural arch of life:

• Childhood (birth-11), where we are protected by a father
• Adolescence (12-16), where we become obsessed with girls and sex
• Early adulthood (17-21), which involves getting a girl pregnant, which should be accompanied by a legally-binding, uninfringable contract called “marriage”
• Adulthood and middle age (22-65), where a man builds a career, which is driven by a desire to provide security for the offspring
• Old age (65-death) and retirement, wherein we slow down our career, and are cared for by the offspring we created

This is a life pattern that existed from the time of the caveman up until the end of World War II.

Without the ability to go through this natural process of development, we are going to have chaos.

The underlying vehicle of this destruction has been ideology. It is a topic for another article (and has been the topic of many articles), but via ideology, we have been led to believe that we can build a utopia by following certain rules. Different ideologies were sold to different groups, and this ultimately allowed the rulers of society, who were either Jews or influenced by Jews via the academic establishment, to move society to a place that no one would otherwise have agreed to.

The ideologies are always presented as scientific, but they are nonetheless shrouded in metaphysics. What they did was replace God. That is the bottom line to all of this: God was replaced, and every negative outcome is a result of that. So of course the government is instructing you on how to stick drugs up your asshole.

The Guardian this week:

Reuters this same week:

Anyone who thinks that these two headlines are somehow related is a lunatic conspiracy theorist, high on internet disinformation from Russia, who is dangerous, and is a terrorist. They want to kill your family.

They are against free markets. The people saying “those two headlines are related” would have knifed George Washington in his back. They hate America, and they hate freedom. They want to put you into communism.

What’s more, people who think those headlines are related hate the Jews. They are racist anti-Semites. They are planning to round up the Jews and gas them, as they also plan to put the blacks back in chains.

Be a good person. Don’t choose to be pure evil.

Make the right choice and believe the right thing: these headlines are a total coincidence. There is literally no relationship there whatsoever.

In April, the entire media apparatus, including allegedly independent media, acted in unison to support the coronavirus lockdown.

The virus was presented as a public health crisis that was beyond politics, and it was claimed that there was a single possible response to it, which was for the government to lock people in their houses by passing decrees which effectively totally nullified every single basic right that we as Westerners established with the Magna Carta in 1215 AD.

I was not paying any attention to the National Review at the time, because I don’t really pay attention to the National Review generally, but like all other media, they were shilling the lockdown and attacking the protesters.

On April 22, 2020, the awful Jew Jonah Goldberg penned a piece entitled, “Quarantine Protesters Are No Heroes of Civil Disobedience,” where he condemned the protesters as a threat to public health and demanded that everyone just trust the government and obey.

Goldberg claimed explicitly that the lockdown was “not tyranny” and that anyone who thinks there is another agenda behind it is a kook. Bizarrely, he went so far as to claim that the Founding Fathers would support the lockdown. Goldberg’s assumption is apparently that the virus is not political, though it is impossible to understand how he would come to that conclusion.

Goldberg is of course a Jew, and you expect Jews to support tyrannical policies designed to destroy Christendom. However, typically, the Jews “play both sides,” as it were, using all of these different ideologies.

The National Review promotes “the conservative ideology.” They play the side of supporting the alleged “free market,” and claiming that the free market gives elite private interests all of these rights to abuse you in various ways, and prevents the government which you pay taxes to from protecting you. For example, when someone needs an explanation as to why Twitter is allowed to take your First Amendment rights away, or why corporations are allowed to sell us known poisons and the government won’t implement any regulations at all, they go to the National Review.

While claiming that the US government has no right to protect the American people from threats to their Constitutional rights and to their health inside of the United States, the conservative ideology also claims that the US government has an absolute right to invade foreign countries, either to stop terrorism or to bring them democracy. (Honestly, I don’t even remember how support for wars of aggression fits in with their “small government” positions, but there is some ideological explanation.)

The National Review of course ostensibly tries to convince people to agree with their ideology. However, given that Donald Trump has taken a different view on these things, and the masses of Republicans like Donald Trump, they are significantly less influential than they were before. In particular, people do not like this thing where we move all of our jobs out of the country and the government throws their hands up and says, “there’s nothing we can do, because we have to follow the conservative ideology of free trade. If it destroys your life then sorry, but that’s the cost of our values.”

However, more than actually trying to convince people to agree with them, the conservative publications and think tanks fill a place and provide an explanation as to why these horrible things are allowed to happen. For example, if someone asks why all of our jobs were moved overseas, or why we are involved with endless wars in the Middle East, the system can point to the National Review and say that “conservatives” supported these things and all they were doing was performing the will of the people.

In general, the purpose of this grid of ideologies in our political system is to provide an excuse for whatever the government wants to do. The Jews hold no ideology, functioning purely on a tribal drive to dominate other tribes, but they can always find some ideology that will back up any terrible action.

But if the National Review has gone out and said that the government has an absolute right to collapse the entire market economy, destroying all small businesses, citing data that was known to be false when they cited it (Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College London graphs), then what possible credibility could they have in claiming that the government has no right to regulate multinational corporations?

Obviously, not much.

The average person doesn’t really understand that he’s been sold an ideology, or what an ideology even is, but he is capable of looking around himself and he is capable of identifying contradictions. Trump had been picking apart conservative ideology since 2015, on the dual-front of both the wars and the loss of jobs, and Tucker Carlson has been backing him up, fleshing a lot of this stuff out so normal people can wrap their heads around it.

It was a powerful thing when Lindsey Graham told Tucker Carlson that he believes “America is a nation of ideas,” and Tucker said, “it’s a nation of people. People live here.”

A lot of normal people, who do not understand the role that ideology plays in our political system, saw that interview and said: “Yeah, what the hell is this faggot babbling about, ‘nation of ideas’? What does that phrase even mean? I live here and I’m not an idea.”

But the history books will record that ideological conservatism as having officially died when Sean Hannity attacked Tucker, giving him no room to respond, to defend Jeff Bezos making $13 billion in one day as a result of the lockdown.

Here was Tucker’s segment on Jeff Bezos that proceeded this exchange
pic.twitter.com/G3uYTytRpC

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 22, 2020

Hannity said that making money is morally good, and there is nothing wrong with Bezos getting rich while everyone suffers. It’s a very strange position from a moral standpoint, and from a political standpoint, it is incoherent. Bezos is an extremely powerful enemy of the right, who actively uses his wealth to harm America, Donald Trump, white people and heterosexuals in general. But ideology is not about morality or practical political realities – it is about a perceived consistency. And that is why it falls apart here: Jeff Bezos made that money because of the lockdown, which was ordered by the government.

The economy is a zero sum game. This was a massive transfer of wealth from middle class small business owners to the ultra wealthy ruling elite, and it was enabled by the government. The fact that ideological conservatives would defend the greatest heist in history – the looting of the entire middle class by the elite, a heist enabled by the government – proves that conservatism as an ideology was always about manipulating people into the service of a completely unrelated agenda.

The contradiction is this: people duped into actually believing in conservatism are too moral to actually benefit from it. Someone like Mitt Romney is corrupt enough to benefit from conservatism while promoting it, but he is also a snake who will turn heel and start promoting extremist black communism if he thinks that will benefit him. He believes in nothing at all.

The long and short of it is that ideology is promoted by Jews to harm Christians.

And by the way, I don’t give a good damn about the so-called “browning of America.” Color doesn’t matter. Ideology does.

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 16, 2017

No one can explain how anyone but Jews and other globalist elites have ever benefited from any of it. Frankly, it simply is not helpful.

Jeff Bezos doesn’t believe in conservatism, but conservatism defends his right to loot the country. That sums up the whole thing: it is an ideology for dupes. That is every other ideology as well: they are all designed by cynical snakes to manipulate gullible people, who are confused by the complexity of society, into working against their own interests in the pursuit of a utopia, thereby providing an excuse for any behavior. In a normal reality, where people just dealt with what they see as they see it, no one would ever defend Jeff Bezos. In the reality of ideology, the people who he hurts the most are told they have to defend him, “because it’s our values.”

Thus far, no bad outcome has turned people off of ideology. The silent chant of the ideology-believer is this: “the means justify the ends.” That is: “As long as we follow our ideology, it doesn’t matter if we lose, because we lost in pursuit of the highest ideal, which is a weird abstraction that has nothing to do with actual reality.”

But thus far, people have not really suffered much for putting the abstract before the real. Now, we are entering into a time of real suffering. The chickens are coming home to roost.

We need to remember that in April of 2020, the National Review and the rest of the conservative ideologists supported the destruction of the middle class, throwing away their entire ideology in the name of an obvious hoax. It is fundamental to the concept of ideology that it remain static, that it be continually implemented in every situation.

That agreement is now voided.

Note Regarding the Term “Conservatism”

For most normal people, the term “conservatism” exists independently of the ideology of conservatism. Most people who identify as “conservatives” do so because they support Christianity, guns and family values, and they’re against abortion and homosexuals.

It’s unfortunate that the term has these two meanings, because this can lead to confusion. To make the best of this, we should begin to redefine the term itself, removing the ideological connotations. Nick Fuentes has been doing a good job with this.

“They’re not promoting conservatism, they’re promoting ideology,” is I think a good line to use in order to distinguish between personal values and an ideology.

It’s not really hard to explain how support for the ideology is in conflict with conserving the family. You can’t conserve a family when you don’t have a job because your ideology said you had to send it to China, and you can’t conserve the innocence of children when your ideology said you have to defend the complete domination of your entire society by a private company that promotes abortion and teaching gay sex to your kids.

Jeff Bezos was one of the key funders of the campaign to legalize so-called “anal marriage” all the way back in 2012. This Sean Hannity position of “I may not agree with where you stick your penis, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to ram it into another man’s anus” is untenable and ridiculous. No Christian is obligated to support anal sex and every Christian who fights for anal sex is going to be judged for it. By defending Amazon’s absolute right to dominate society, you are defending gay anal.

Furthermore: you can’t conserve or defend anything if you’re not allowed to speak your mind, so when your ideology puts you in a position where you have to support having your freedom of speech taken from you, you’ve got a serious problem.

The biggest thing you can point to when addressing the ideologists is that they violated their ideology in supporting this lockdown, which effectively voided it. No one knows just how bad things are going to get as a result of this lockdown, but we know for a fact that it is the defining event of our lives. Pointing out that these alleged ideological conservatives supported this destruction and now want to go back to their old rules of “no government intervention” so they can transfer all the wealth to Bezos is really going to rub people the wrong way.

What we should not ever do is go out and say, “I’m against conservatism.” In order for that to make sense to a person, they have to understand everything that I’ve written in this article, and the average person has no need or desire to do that. So, use the term “conservative,” but make sure it is about defending the family in real terms in reality, not some weird economic gibberish.

Another phrase that should be helpful in dealing with the people: “the family is not a political institution.”

Ideology, invented by the Jews, attempts to transpose the personal and the spiritual into the political and the economic, as this way nothing can remain sacred. The family should be sacred, and there shouldn’t be any political doctrine that can justify the destruction of the family. Conservative ideology, with its war on normal people, destroys the family.

Also Note That I’m Not Promoting Socialism

In recent years, presumably as a result of the work that has been done to pick apart conservative ideology, some on the right have started claiming that socialism is actually good.

“Conservative ideology is bad so that must mean that socialist ideology is good” is the absolute epitome of “goy thought,” and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

My position is this: all ideologies are bad. The core concept of “ideology” is in itself negative. This would include virtually every “ism,” save for some forms of nationalism, which is a word that at least can be used to define practical defense of the family and nation.

Importantly: we are not going to have right-wingers running the government in any immediate future, so what we need to be doing right now is building a base of people who agree with us. That means we don’t want to turn them off. We want to speak to the masses of right-inclined people in language that they understand, and communicate our end goals. We do not necessarily need to be explaining how we will accomplish these goals.

We certainly do not need to be putting forward an economic platform. When I see people in the far-right laying out the details of an economic platform, I am shocked and appalled. Whether they believe in some form of libertarianism, or whether they promote socialism, it is always stupid to promote an economic policy. Economics are not an end unto themselves.

This is what an economy needs to do:

1. Provide people of every class with meaningful work
2. Provide people with the ability to generate wealth
3. Provide people with an ability to be independent
4. Provide an opportunity for social mobility
5. Create security and stability that allows people to plan their futures
6. Prevent abuse by parasites – both welfare leeches and elite predators
7. Allow for both poor and rich, but always reinforce the middle class as the default

That’s all. And there are an infinite number of models that would work.

Economic policy should be shaped around accomplishing those goals, and not some bizarre ideological agenda to create a utopia using governmental policy.

This should be the economic policy of the right: “The economy exists to serve the people, and we will implement economic policies that are good for the nation and the family.”

It’s not hard to do if you have two things:

1. A population of decent, hardworking people, and
2. A government that is not managed by Jews and psychopaths

In every white country, we have one of those things. Our goal is to establish the other.

The economy should be wallpaper: it’s all around us, but no one is thinking much about it as long as it is accomplishing its function.

Neo-Nazis are such absolute morons.

Neo-Nazis are so stupid they will claim that there is no law enforcement involvement in the US far right and that anyone who suggests it is just “paranoid” and a “kook.” Environmentalists and the Tea Party get infiltrated by the feds. But not the far-right. Actually, the far-right did get infiltrated by the feds, and at one point 20% of the membership rolls of the Ku Klux Klan was on the FBI payroll. But they stopped doing that, according to neo-Nazis.

Atomwaffen is the most obvious fed trap. It is so obvious in fact that it turned out that it was literally being run by a “former” CIA agent who runs an intelligence contracting group in Washington and currently has an active CAGE code.

The rest of the situations are almost as bad. One of the top guys at another neo-Nazi group was outed as an FBI informant last year, and the group didn’t even fire him.

The people who get involved in this stuff are actual lamebrain boneheads, I’ll tell ya what.

AP:

A Neo-Nazi has pleaded guilty in federal court in Seattle to a charge that he conspired to threaten journalists.

Johnny Roman Garza, 21, of Queen Creek, Arizona, entered the plea by video conference Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Seattle to one count of conspiracy to mail threatening communications, to commit cyberstalking and to interfere with a federally protected activity.

Garza was one of four members of the Neo-Nazi group Atomwaffen Division charged early this year with having cyberstalked and sent Swastika-laden posters to journalists and an employee of the Anti-Defamation League, telling them, “You have been visited by your local Nazis,” “Your Actions have Consequences,” and “We are Watching.”

Garza admitted that as part of the conspiracy he located the Phoenix apartment complex where a member of the Arizona Association of Black Journalists lived and went there last January intent on leaving the threatening posters. According to the plea agreement, however, Garza could not find a suitable place to put the poster. He then traveled to the home of an editor at a local Jewish publication and affixed a poster to the bedroom window.

The same day, other members of the conspiracy mailed or delivered posters to targets in Washington state and Florida, authorities said.

Investigators warned several of the intended victims before they received the intimidating communications, indicating that they were monitoring the people making the threats.

Of course they were monitoring them.

Come on. Come on. Come on.

Imagine thinking that you can plan terrorism on the internet.

Imagine thinking that criminally harassing random Jews serves some political purpose.

What do they imagine the purpose of threatening Jew journalists is, other than to expand the budget of the FBI?

I can’t even figure it out. I guess it could just be “revenge,” but I doubt that’s what they would answer if you asked them.

The only context in which terrorism makes logical sense is when you’re doing it for some specific purpose:

• When the Moslems shot up Charlie Hebdo, they had the goal of stopping people from printing Muhammad cartoons. (Semi-successful – the magazine didn’t print the cartoons again for five years, and I’m sure a lot of other publications skipped printing such cartoons after the shooting.)
• When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma Federal Building, he had the goal of telling the feds to back off after they did Ruby Ridge and Waco. (Semi-successful: the feds did back off for quite a while, and we didn’t see another slaughter type thing.)
• When the IRA did terrorism, they had the goal of getting the English out of Ireland and getting their own people into the government. (Successful.)
• 911 ostensibly had the goal of getting the US military out of the Middle East. (Total failure.) Or, it was done by Jews, and had the goal of getting the US involved much more heavily in the Middle East (Successful.)

And so on and so forth – you get the thing.

Neo-Nazis don’t get the thing. They just do terrorism randomly, for no clear reason other than to expand the budget of the FBI. Even if they were somehow killing several thousand Jews a year, it wouldn’t result in any conceivable positive outcome, because there isn’t even a goal. Neo-Nazis presumably are political, and want to establish some sort of fascist state in America or whatever. But nothing they do appears on the face of it to be geared towards achieving any political goal.

Maybe they would say that they are “sending a message,” but what is the message? That they hate Jews? Everyone already knows that.

It is unbelievably dumb.

Obviously, not all neo-Nazis are as dumb as people who join the Atomwaffen network of fed honeypots. But they are all dumb. They believe in ideology, because their minds are too weak to deal with the reality situation. Most neo-Nazis are now literally against Donald Trump, and saying you should vote for Joe Biden.

pic.twitter.com/KY2r61RW3k

— Richard 🦁 Spencer (@RichardBSpencer) August 24, 2020

They say that you shouldn’t vote for Trump because he supports Israel, or because he is a Christian, or because he’s not doing a revolution, and if you vote for Democrats, random white people will form an army and rise up and overthrow the government.

It’s an ideology called “accelerationism” and it’s retarded.

Here’s an example from the Gamer Uprising forum:

These people say that “worse is better,” because the first successful peasant uprising in all of human history is just around the corner. So they’re in an absolute mind-cage where they go around celebrating losing. They say that losing is winning. I guess that’s a useful psychological crutch for weak-minded people who don’t want to deal with reality, but when you have a situation where these people are voting for Black Lives Matter and Antifa due to their delusion, it becomes a serious mental deficiency.

This is where you eventually end up when you go full-on with ideology.

You just start promoting weird nonsense, which is blatantly against your own interests, because of the idea that you can reach some kind of purity and that this will then lead to a utopia.

It’s no different than Sean Hannity saying that we have to support Jeff Bezos and Amazon having a total monopoly over basically everything and driving everyone into poverty because it’s “our free market values.”

Remember: Karl Marx is the man who originally developed ideology theory. Every ideology is de facto Marxism, as the core concept is always the same: that if you implement a perfect set of ideas, you can build a utopia.

This is why you see people jump around from conservatism to libertarianism to communism to neo-Nazism (or whatever), and then keep jumping back and forth between them. You might think that libertarianism is the opposite of communism, but it is not. At all. Both of these are ideological systems that argue you can build a utopia with perfect ideas. If your goal is to figure out how to build a utopia using perfect ideas, then you will just go with whichever ideology seems to be the best at the time, based on your autistic analysis of it.

A utopia is by definition perfect, so in theory, if communism or libertarianism succeeds, they will both have the same outcome: perfection of society.

There is no such thing as “right-wing ideology.” What it fundamentally means to be right-wing is to accept reality as it is and deal with it as it is. That is also masculinity. Ideology is fundamentally a Jewish, thus feminine, concept: it’s all about legalism. Like Hannity defending Bezos, who should be his arch-nemesis, for these convoluted “free market” reasons.

Related: Masculinity is Not an Ideology and Ideology is Dumb

We need to be dealing with reality, confronting reality, and coming up with reality-based solutions.

That’s all.

We don’t need some weird, confusing gibberish in order to defend our own individual and collective interests.

Twitter is just trying to find any little place where they can make things more Orwellian.

POLITICO:

Twitter will start labeling the accounts of media outlets affiliated with the governments of countries on the U.N. National Security Council, it announced Thursday.

The new labels won’t apply to all media outlets that receive government funding — only “outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution,” according to Twitter’s blog post announcing the change.

The labels will go on the accounts for China Daily, Russia Today, Sputnik and other media outlets, a Twitter spokesperson said. But not Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, two media outlets funded by the U.S. government, or NPR and the BBC. The blog post described NPR and the BBC as “state-financed media organizations with editorial independence.”

Obviously, the editors of RT or China Daily would claim they have editorial independence, in the same way that the editors of NPR and the BBC claim to have editorial independence. That is to say, “state funding” is an objective measure, whereas “editorial independence” simply is not. At all.

Many people question the editorial independence of Washington Post, given that they are owned by Jeff Bezos, and tend to cover Amazon favorably. In fact, the editorial independence of every media outlet tends to be questioned, even if they do not have a direct and public conflict of interest. The editorial independence of the Daily Stormer has been questioned; for example, given that we have ostensibly reported favorably on certain countries, we have been accused of receiving money from these countries. We have never received money from any country or any individual who has ever attempted to change the direction of this publication, but the fact is, that can’t ever be proved, so it becomes a stupid discussion.

All of this is to say: information has to be taken at face value, and all information should be examined through a critical lens by adult readers. The social media companies are now dealing with people as though they are children, incapable of any kind of critical analysis whatsoever. I don’t know if people are or are not capable of critical analysis, but I do know that the primary, foundational assumption of a universal suffrage democracy is that every adult member of society is capable of rational analysis and critical decision-making. That’s the most basic claim of this system, as it justifies allowing them to vote and determine who runs the government.

By undermining the ability of people to make rational and informed decisions, Twitter is undermining the concept of universal suffrage democracy itself. Of course, they don’t care, because our rulers do not actually believe in anything other than power. They profess various ideologies at different times, but only use these ideologies to push their agenda that exists totally independently from the ideologies.

The right needs to start doing the same. We need to be going after power. There was nothing more enraging than watching right-wing shills say that Trump shouldn’t regulate social media because it would “expand government control.” I’ve already given my full analysis of that, so I won’t go into it here, but the fact of reality is this: the right chasing ideological spooks while the left continues to act purely pragmatically is why we are losing. That is the most basic of all reasons we are losing.

Remember that the Trump Administration started off on a failure because John McCain sabotaged the vote to repeal Obamacare. That set the stage for everything else.

It was open sabotage by McCain, of course, and anyone who knew anything knew that, and yet, none in the media or in the party would call him a saboteur or an anti-American traitor because he claimed to be acting under loyalty to an ideological spook. Loyalty to ideological spooks is considered on the right to be respectable and good, even though it is purely destructive, and has zero upsides.

We should take note of the fact that Twitter is allegedly acting in the name of democracy while undermining what is literally the single most important foundational principle of democracy when we consider the fact that we allow our own representatives to act out of alleged loyalty to ideological spooks.

The far-right is even more obsessed with ideological spooks than the mainstream conservative right, frankly. These people are the literal Spook Patrol.

We have an agenda that is a real agenda based on real world policies we want to enact. The process of enacting this agenda should not and cannot be laden with spooks. A spook-laden agenda cannot ever be realized.

The millennials are obsessed with ideology. Probably, this is because they are a generation that saw society transform at hyper-speed during their formative years.

My first memories of video games looked like this:

Cellphones looked like this:

A Mac looked like this:

As I grew up, nothing remained as it was. That creates a profound sense of instability in a person’s psyche.

This, it seems to me, is what led to the millennial fixation on ideology: they felt a need to prioritize categorized ideas as a way to manage a rapidly changing environment.

Ideology is the easy way out, and it has historically only been within the purview of tricky Jews trying to manipulate academic-minded weaklings. But in a time when practical decisions seem impossible because of the rate of change, the natural inclination is going to be to default to these ideological systems.

Or, maybe millennials are just ideology-obsessed because they were almost all totally brainwashed at university.

It has struck me that these ideologies that the millennials hold are all rooted in Disney singalongs. We all heard these a million times as kids. And they laid the framework for all of these different ideological concepts that the millennials use to structure their perceptions of reality.

Fascism/Nazism: “Be Prepared,” The Lion King

Anarcho-Primitivism: “The Bare Necessities,” The Jungle Book

Environmentalism: “Colors of the Wind,” Pocahontas

Globalism (Mass Immigrationism): “Be Our Guest,” Beauty and the Beast

Pick-Up Artistry: “Prince Ali,” Aladdin

Homosexualism: “Friend Like Me,” Aladdin

Black Liberationism: “I Wanna Be Like You (The Monkey Song),” The Jungle Book

Feminism: “Belle,” Beauty and the Beast

Nihilistic Materialism: “Why Should I Worry,” Oliver and Company

Communism: “Under the Sea,” The Little Mermaid

Conclusion

I think we all now have a better understanding of the sick mind of the millennial generation, who are actually much worse than boomers.

I don’t think the role that Disney cartoons played in shaping the realities of millennials has really been examined much at all, and honestly, this needs a more serious take than this bullshit that I just wrote. I think they should be broken down individually, and the root messages pulled out of them and analyzed. They were all so well done, and we all watched them so many times at our most impressionable ages, that they would have to be among the biggest influences in the formation of our minds.

What’s more, they were pretty much watched in every country in the West, so they were part of the first stages of the global uniculture.

I enjoyed listening to all of these songs in putting this piece together, and now have a desire to go back and watch the movies, few of which I’ve ever seen as an adult, and see what I’m able to draw from them. Maybe I’ll do a series of reviews. Better yet: maybe I’ll write a book entitled: “Faggot Millennials: How Disney Singalongs Shaped the Most Ideological Generation That Ever Existed.”

Sean Hannity has risen up against Tucker Carlson to offer a brave defense of Amazon.com and Jeff Bezos.

Tucker signs off the show every day by handing it over to Sean Hannity, and during the sign-off on Tuesday, Sean decided it was time to slap Tucker around a little bit for his insolence in opposing capitalism.

The Daily Caller, Tucker’s own publication (which he has now sold his shares in) caught the clips, and the clip that Sean took issue with, and posted them on Twitter.

Here was Tucker’s segment on Jeff Bezos that proceeded this exchange
pic.twitter.com/G3uYTytRpC

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 22, 2020

Sean said, “people can make money. They provide goods and services that people want, need and desire, that’s America. It’s called “freedom-capitalism.” Ahhh and as long as it’s honest, right? People decide. Alright, Tucker, great show.”

Tucker had just done a segment criticizing Jeff Bezos for making $13 billion in one day during the pandemic. (You can watch that segment also in the tweet above.)

The thing that is happening here is that Sean Hannity is ideological, so he has an agenda to always defend businesspeople no matter how destructive and evil they are.

The difference between Tucker and Sean is notable in that it is the pure difference between ideological and not ideological. Tucker is concerned about the practical and real world effects of behaviors and actions, whereas Sean believes that we can create a utopia by following specific rules.

We could of course break down why it is stupid to believe that Amazon should be treated the same as a small business, but that is something that I think the reader understands, and it is more interesting to talk about the concept of ideology itself, which leads to the idiotic belief that there is no real difference between Amazon and a mom and pop book store.

What we can all notice is that Tucker is much smarter than Sean. That is consistent with this difference in orientation. Ideology is always something promoted by relatively stupid people, because they do not like to think about complexity. They do not like to imagine that because things change, and because different people have different agendas, that different actions have different outcomes, that we must consider a complex array of factors in deciding what is best for the people, what is best for the country.

Sean Hannity would no doubt say that if we regulated massive monopoly businesses like Amazon, that would mean that we would also have to regulate small businesses, because we have to have extreme rules that can be applied to every situation in exactly the same way. A lack of regulation benefits small businesses, so that means we must not regulate massive monopoly corporations. Of course, if the massive monopolies destroy all the small businesses, that’s unfortunate, but if we just keep following the ideology, eventually it will all work itself out somehow. Anyone who thinks it’s more complicated than this must be a socialist.

Of course, the right didn’t always think this way. The reason that the right didn’t always think this way is that the people who were in charge of the right were more intelligent. They could say: “yes, of course small businesses are good, but a multi-billion dollar monopoly that crushes all small businesses is not the same thing as a small business and the government has to treat it differently in terms of regulation.”

On the other side of the ideological spectrum, you have people who recognize that monopolies need to be regulated, but then say that also, small businesses should be forced to pay huge taxes, engage in carbon-trading and provide free abortions to employees.

The only people who are going to be able to actually manage a system are people who reject the concept of ideology completely, and say that decisions must be made based on what is best for the people and the society. These people are rare, because ideology has largely taken over our society. Even fringe groups talk about, “oh no – it is our ideology that will save the day.”

Probably, the reason that ideology is now king of discourse is that the society has become so complex that people feel they need to retreat from dealing with reality into a realm of absolute ideas. There is a safety there in the ideas, where they can believe that they are able to manage the complexity of modern society simply through ensuring that everything fits into a neat box.

I often point out that the modern concept of ideology was invented by Karl Marx, and that any form of ideology, being necessarily utopian, is a variation of Marxism. Marxism was the first utopian political philosophy, and all of these things that have come after, including modern American conservatism, have followed Marxism in that followers are on a quest for utopia through the perfect application of a perfect system of ideas.

What is incredible is that Sean Hannity would no doubt say, “my ideology is freedom,” even though this is such an obvious oxymoron. Freedom cannot be an ideology, as an ideology is necessarily opposed to freedom, in that it requires slavish service to a system of ideas.

Aside from the nature of the disagreement between Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, and the fact that this must have been a long-running frustration for Sean as he watched Tucker present violations of the agreed-upon ideology of the conservative movement over the years, is the rudeness of what he did. If Sean wanted to present an argument against Tucker, he should have asked Tucker to leave time at the end of the show for a back and forth. What he did was shove it in when Tucker was going off air, so Tucker had no chance to respond. This was incredibly inappropriate.

Apparently, Sean quickly heard about how inappropriate people believed it was, because within 20 minutes of going off air on Tuesday night, he had posted a tweet saying he didn’t do what you thought he did.

I was reiterating Tucker’s point on NOT being versus capitalism. I was in the chair one minute before airtime and I was specifically responding to the end of Tucker’s interview when he said he supported honest capitalism, I had not heard any of the other part of the interview.

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) July 22, 2020

Sean played it off like he was actually agreeing, though I don’t think anyone who watched that clip could get that impression. Sean was defending Amazon and Jeff Bezos, because he is an ideological believer in a totally unregulated market, and believes that monopoly corporations abusing the population is something that can be fixed through more deregulation.

It is also notable that Tucker has been beating Sean’s ratings since April. Tucker is now the most popular cable news show on television, and in fact, the most popular cable news show in all of history. So that could potentially factor into what is going on here. Sean not only disagrees with Tucker, but now, even though Sean has the better time spot, the people are making it clear that they agree with Tucker over him.

I think this feud has been boiling for a while, and I think it could easily be exploited in the quest to get Tucker off the air. We shall see how it unfolds, and we will keep you updated on any further escalation.

Windows has gotten completely out of control, to the point where it is virtually pointless. This is what happens with monopolies, I guess, but it is virtually impossible to grasp the fact that they now just do updates, all the time, at any time. Normal people simply cannot have this. Everyone on earth has work schedules, and some of them are pretty tight.

Although I work a lot, I have a relatively flexible schedule. I can wake up or go to sleep at any time I want, I can take an hour or two off whenever I need it and I have very few “hard” appointments. However, virtually every hard appointment I’ve ever had – usually podcasts or Skype calls – has been delayed by Windows updates.

I can only imagine the number of people who get caught in the situation of:

• Get a call 15 minutes before a meeting
• Have to send an email before the meeting, based on what was said in the call
• Turn on the laptop, wait twenty minutes for Windows to update

I know we can all now say “just use your phone,” but phones are not really a workspace. It is not only 10x as fast to type on a laptop than on a phone. It is a matter of being able to organize your notes, your files, everything. Serious work is not done on phones, period. Furthermore, any work you try to do on a phone is going to take a lot longer, even if you do have the ability to make it work. So forcing the phone to be the only valid computer that can be used in a situation with a tight timeframe is insane, but that is exactly what Windows has done to 90% of the world.

This problem has become so common that “sorry, Windows updated on me” has become a universal excuse that no one has any choice but to accept. It is effectively like being caught in an earthquake or a volcano eruption.

I have no idea why they need this many updates. In fact, I have not even read a reasonable explanation for it. I think the explanation is “we don’t need an explanation – if you don’t like it, grow a beard and run Linux, you nerd.”

Well, someone on reddit took a picture of a Windows-oriented Linux distro someone made and passed out at a convention that is kind of funny.

This is legitimately funny, as it epitomizes the typical Linux cultist. It is evangelical propaganda, that looks like a religious tract, advertising the salvation of souls through open source. It even makes the false claim that it can run games (though you do wonder if a gamer would misspell “Nvidia”).

And that is all it is – a scam advertising campaign to convert people to the cult of Linux. Someone took whichever distro and added a Windows background, then passed it out to try to trick people into believing it was related to Windows. It is typical tricks.

Of course, for anyone who doesn’t know, running Linux on a personal computer is a far from reasonable action. I have done it for years on and off, and I will be the first to tell you that it is simply a waste of time. There are several legitimate and serious benefits – including a lack of surprise updates – but all of these benefits are vastly outweighed by extreme negatives.

It leaves me reminded of the opposition to the current Jewish order.

Our society is running on a totally broken operating system that interferes with every aspect of our daily lives, something which in theory should be very easy to oppose with an option that would be very popular among the people. But instead of having good options, the only people opposing the system are either presenting some kind of unhinged neo-Nazism or a dumb and insane communist agenda. And people advertise these joke alternatives using dumb advertising campaigns, just like this Linux CD. And just like with Linux, the only result is the formation of a fringe cult.

There are very few people on earth presenting a reasonable critique of democracy with realistic solutions that could be implemented to replace this system. So the political consumer, just like the software consumer, is stuck with the terrible alternative of simply dealing with the established order.

Linux home distros have spent overly much time attempting to implement all kinds of dumb imitations of modern graphical interface features instead of focusing on drivers and creating a system that just works out of the box. Most people would settle for a Windows XP graphical interface if it was easy and it just worked, but Ubuntu in particular – the biggest Linux distro – has instead gone down a bizarre rabbit hole of trying to create a system that competes directly in terms of graphics with Windows.

Just so, neo-Nazis and assorted lunatics have dived face first into the rabbit hole of attempting to manufacture a complex ideological system to compete with the complex ideological system of the establishment, while abandoning the obvious, which would be to keep things very simple and provide a consistent critique of the most obvious and most painful aspects of democracy, and explain how they could be easily fixed.

I just thought of this analogy when I looked at this CD on reddit, so I will have to think further about how deep the analogy goes. Because it could go very deep.

Right now I can tell you: the shared problem between open source operating systems and alternative political theory is a lack of financial resources. The lack of financial resources leads to a lack of human resources, so you are only left with a few talented romantics driven by ideology surrounded by a bunch of weirdos. And that is always a recipe for a cult.

The weirdos and the emerging cult dynamics then push away anyone who could be convinced through an appeal to idealism and morality to join your side, despite the lack of finances. You are simply left spinning your wheels forever, while never being able to reach the hundreds of millions of people who are fed up with the established norms.