patrick.net

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-fracture

in the end you’re playing on one key aspect of human nature:

“rubes will happily believe damn near anything in order to avoid admitting that they have been played for rubes.”

in the end, cognitive dissonance is your friend here and you can use it to not only prevent the changing of minds but to bind them more strongly to your doctrine. it comes down to three things:

isolate

alienate

indoctrinate

and that’s it.

you need to be the only one speaking. no outside noise or perspective.

you need to make the outside look hostile, predatory, and menacing.

and then you push your dogmatic payload again as “us vs them” and “only we love you and they carry the awful taint of heresy” and faster than you can say “branch davidian” they are all back in line and rarin’ to go.

it’s culting 101.

of course, the problem with this is if you push it too far, you actually break their brains and they fall apart and have breakdowns and reality schisms and fractures, but hey, omelets, eggs, whatever. nobody said the cult business was easy.

OK. why am i telling you this?

it’s because an awful lot of people are recently noticing a “sudden” trend and it’s one i worry about. the trend is this:




this is real human tragedy. it’s wild, divisive stuff. and it can get A LOT worse than that. i’m not sure the folks pushing these ideas understand quite what they are playing with. (or worse, they do and just do not care)

and it’s pretty clear where this is coming from.

anyone who gets their news from TV or NYT is living in a parallel universe, one where the cult still reigns.

and these outlets have an actual, vested interest in keeping their viewers from understanding or even experiencing reality. ...

these are low identity people who, internally bereft of substance or morality became "people who are their ideas" rather than "people who have ideas." this sort of external fixation and validation of self causes one to experience all criticism or disagreement as a form of personal attack.

you cannot dispute "their ideas" without disputing "who they think they are."

they literally experience pluralism of ideas as erasure.

the actual existence of ideas other than their ideas causes them plain and threatens their sense of self. ...

Patrick says

But "liberals" do this all the time. Disagreement is simply not allowed. Liberals" are in fact not so liberal after all.

I'm an ass hole as probably noted here. I just tell them they're a fucking idiot. I'm only polite with family and explain my stance and 9 out of 10 times they get it. A few retards don't.

I like blacks, I like Haitians, Mexican, etc. Get along with them. I don't have a racist bone in my body. BUT, what I know is they don't experience it. White liberals.

As I think regulars here know it's close to me. Raise a black child. Explain it everyday to randoms. "Oh you're doing such a nice thing" get fucked. This thread has got me angry. Like I wouldn't help a child let alone a family member? That's more a judgement on me is the way I take it. "You take care of a nigger, so nice of you" is the way I read/hear it from people. Fuck you and die you unsympathetic piece of shit.

My nephew's life is better but I don't need accolades. His life is still fucked up mentally though he does well. I'll be blunt, a semi alcoholic can raise kids better than most when my wife is gone 30% of the time. I'm the fucking guy. Liberals are cucked soy boy pussies. I take a challenge on. He's a drop out if he stayed with his mom. Straight A's, stellar athlete that works hard. While I'm proud, I don't need fake crocodile tears.

TL;DR - Liberals can eat shit. They're the racist.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/the-cult-of-the-echos

it seems like a whole group is mistaking a cycle of abuse for a support group and being led out of hamlin by a pernicious piper who wants to be sure he’s playing the only tune in town.

they are taking “solace and pride in it.”

this is, frankly not great. it’s mistaking the cult for protection and isolation for safety. it’s adopting alienation as a core tenet. those come together into:

“listen to no one but us. the rest of the world is evil and hateful and you can tell who they are because they disagree with us.”

hardly a promising base from which to pursue pluralism.

one might even go so far as to ask some pointed questions about whether this is just reactionary fetal position fact flight or if it’s actual grooming.




whether wittingly or not “cut them off, trust only us!” has been a powerful online tool used by a lot of trans and other activists. making such actions and narrow dependence seem like an act of strength is a longstanding tactic of abusers. ...

this sets the stage for indoctrination and the easiest way to facilitate that is through relentless repetition of one viewpoint, over and over, until it seems like “what everyone knows.” other viewpoints need to be disallowed. ...

popular twitter account end wokeness got their content blocked and their bluesky account flagged in seconds for posting “there are only two genders.”

i wonder what else gets insta-suppressed. i’m guessing it’s a lot of things. ...

they are experiencing ideas plurality as some sort of biblical plague.



the need to establish an intellectual monoculture wherein the devotees may once more pretend to be a majority that “everyone agrees with” in a sort of cosseted cosplay cultural involution is crashing their servers.

it’s going to do worse things to their minds.

they are getting really active on “cut everyone not just like us out of your life.”

they will increasingly become unreachable and will lack a common context or language with which to speak to the outside.

their consensus reality will become all consensus and no reality.

to survive, such a system must cut off communication with anything threatening its ideological and perceptual slant.

Patrick says

to survive, such a system must cut off communication with anything threatening its ideological and perceptual slant.

That is the entire moral of the story about the emperor with no clothes.

[W]hen genuine debate is lacking, freedom of speech does not work as it is meant to work. It has lost the principle which regulates and justifies it – that is to say, dialectic conducted according to logic and the rules of evidence. If there is not effective debate, the unrestricted right to speak will unloose so many propagandists, procurers, and panders upon the public that sooner or later in self-defense the people will turn to censors to protect them. . .

For in the absence of debate unrestricted utterance leads to the degradation of opinion. By a kind of Gresham’s law the more rational is overcome by the less rational, and the opinions that will prevail will be those which are held most ardently by those with the most passionate will. For that reason the freedom to speak can never be maintained merely by objecting to interference with the liberty of the press, of printing, of broadcasting, of the screen. It can be maintained only by promoting debate.

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/intellectual-hospitality-and-genuine

All nice and all. Intellectually, I even agree.

But Heinlein's take is much more accurate, from what I have seen. Alinsky figured this shit out also:

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.

When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."

https://www.kunstler.com/p/personal-note

This past summer, I tried to open a line of communication with a West Coast relative. We exchanged a few letters. I tactically steered the conversation away from the political. Here was the closer salvo from my relative:

"Jimmy, on a completely personal level, and in different times, I think we could have been very good friends. At this point in our history, I find what you say in your blogs and Kunstlercast to be outrageous, deceptive, and ugly. I disagree with almost everything you hold dear politically, and even if, for instance, we agree about the horrors of Big Pharma, your worship of Kennedy makes me ill. Your language falls right into all the clichés of the far right ideologies I loathe.Maybe someday things will change. For now, this is the last you'll be hearing from me."

Frankly, what stung most keenly was the accusation that my language fell “into all the clichés of the far right ideologies. . . .” I like to think that I am allergic to clichés, though it’s possible that I am deluded about that. If anything, the dynamic collective thought disorders of our time present themselves in astonishingly fresh ways — for instance, a Supreme Court nominee who can’t define what a woman is. (Makes you kind of wonder how such a mind could parse Article Two of the Constitution.)

Mostly, I would have liked to know what those “far right ideologies” are, exactly, but it looks like I will never find out now. Maybe it is being opposed to censorship. . . or against Ukraine’s entry into NATO. . . or wanting coherent procedure for foreigners seeking to enter the USA. . . or keeping biological men out of the women’s swim lanes. . . or saying that ivermectin is a safe and effective anti-viral med. . . or supposing that people charged with felonies should not be released to the streets without significant cash bail. Stuff like that.

As it happened, we were not discussing these matters in our brief correspondence, but I was at something of a disadvantage since I am a professional writer who posts his opinion for public scrutiny and my relative is not. Of course, I describe what is a pandemic of broken family relations in our country. And social relations. I have been cancelled by most of my old friends, too, and I’m quite sure that I am not a special case. I am mystified by what these relatives and old friends actually believe these days. When we were hippies back in the day, they were very much opposed to war, turned-off by attempts at censorship, and deeply averse to the dark operations of the CIA and FBI. Now, they seem avid for intel ops and hoaxes, eager for war, and all-in for censoring ideas that make them feel “unsafe.” ...

But mark this: there is a time coming when we will get tired of being crazy, and then things will go differently for us. We’ll start talking again.

The headline is definitely not true anymore.

When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."

This goes back to what I’ve said about making people who are incapable of being powerful, due to incompetency, weakness, and lack of intelligence, feel powerful. It’s super obvious in those current videos of wimpy freaks “training” for Pantyfa. Take an excluded loser, tell them they are something, hide them in a mask, and work in a pack and you now have the ultimate useful idiot.

https://www.kunstler.com/p/personal-note/comment/158927879

I couldn't agree more! I've watched my husband's identical twin brother do the same thing that James's relative did to him. My husband has over 50 yrs as a virologist/immunologist, worked in Public Health Dept of PA for many years advising public/doctors/govt on how to manage disease, illness, outbreaks of disease etc. He also used to help make jabs back in 1970s until he found out there were SV-40 (cancer) cells in them. 5 yrs ago when covid first came out, my husband tried to tell his twin not to get jabbed, those jabs were NOT good for you. His twin's response was to get angry and say "This conversation is over", then hang up. Later on he was so sick he couldn't get out of bed. You'd think that he would have listened to my husband with his background of science. It's been painful for my husband and for me. The rest of my husband's twin turned all of the family and friends against my husband. I've seen numerous people on line with the exact same story and now they have no relatives or friends who will talk to them. This is happening way too much and I've lost all respect for people who so thoughtlessly and hatefully turn away from family/friends and cause deep hurt and pain for those who have been rejected by the haters. I have no idea what to do about this but it does seem to be permanent once it happens. Very, very sad. My heart hurts for those who have been through this.

Something similar happened to me. My brother and his wife are branch covidians of the milder variety. Her family is dropping dead from turbo cancer, heart attacks and strokes. Worse, all their daughters took the Pfizer clot shot, so they're probably sterile.

Whatever.

The reason that the left uses ostracism as its supreme punishment is that the left is socialist in every sense, doing whatever it takes to protect the incompetent, including lying, for the benefit of losing oneself in the group and being protected by the group, while the right is all about truth at any cost, and individual merit. To be excluded from the group feels like death for those who do not believe that they can compete on their own merits.

The left is not only willing to lie to maintain the group, it considers lying for the benefit of the weak or defective to be a cardinal virtue, even to the point of lying that men can become women, and vice versa. And the opposite: telling the truth when it harms the protection that the group gives to the weak is the greatest evil, because it exposes the failing individual who is trying to hide in the group. It takes away the participation trophies and leaves the weak and the defective face to face with their own failures. They find the truth to be cruel and would rather burn down society than allow meritocracy.

This is why men are generally on the right and women are generally on the left. Men are bigger and stronger than women, on average. Men feel that they can compete on their own merits, and are therefore more willing to compete, and to tell the truth. Kutlikova et al proved that high testosterone makes men do what they believe is right rather than what others believe is right.

This is also why the left was so eager to demonstrate eusociality by taking the dangerous and defective mRNA. "Protect your weak neighbor." But the right could not shake its commitment to the truth, and to personal survival.

The left does not like games with winners and losers. Everyone has to have the same communist result, to protect those who would lose from feeling bad. Moms do not like contests in which one child wins. Everyone must get the the same participation trophy to avoid hurt feelings. Dads do like contests, because they want their sons to learn to win in the world, and see the bad feeling of losing as a positive motivation to achieve. My wife recently saw a bumper sticker which said "Personal excellence is the true American virtue." Bingo. This is why the left hates America with a passion that they cannot contain. It exposes their failure to achieve any excellence. Affirmative Action is just another participation trophy, undermining excellence.

Eric Hoffer explained a lot of this in "The True Believer."

So it is literally impossible for the left to ever get along with the right, though the right is very happy to get along with the left. The left has no confidence in their own abilities and doesn't want to talk about it because it is personally embarrassing. The right does have confidence and wants to talk it out, like Charlie Kirk wanted. The left wants to kill people like Charlie for even trying to have a polite discussion about it all.

Patrick says

But "liberals" do this all the time. Disagreement is simply not allowed. "Liberals" are in fact not so liberal after all.

I have a friend who lives in a farm in Ohio. She once saved a fish that was stranded in the middle of the road in a large puddle of rain water. I seen her saving insects. Got arrested for trying to do a kind deed. Very kind...excessively moral woman. She calls herself progressive, I call her liberal. Now, all liberals are not the same. Liberals are good people too. But the radical unhinged ones with left leaning should not be grouped under liberal/progressive. These are crazy, unhinged folks...are often inclined to political liberalism, not liberalism...these folks should be grouped differently.

MolotovCocktail says

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.
When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."

I recall reading an article which referred to Obama speaking highly about Alinsky's tactics.