Another fascinating article. But who has time for all this reading?
"Forever reading, never read."
Wer schreibt, der bleibt. He who writes, remains.
Category: Political Ponerology
Slouching Toward Totalitarianism
Can Trump save us?
Klingenstein: Is our regime totalitarian, emerging or otherwise? What makes it so? How far along are we? Can we fight back?
Ellmers: I think the essay that Ted Richards and I wrote for your website, and the several excellent responses that you published, cover this pretty well.
Klingenstein: How much can Trump fix it?
Ellmers: Very hard to say. Showing up, as they say, is half the battle. Or, as you have noted, the first step in winning a war is to know that you are in one. Trump knows this. He has to keep making the case to the American people that they are true sovereigns, and the arrogant ruling class is illegitimate. The outrageous incompetence of the Secret Service, which failed to prevent the attempted assassination of President Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, is a good way to remind people that our so-called experts have no expertise. These bureaucrats are mostly blowhards, grifters, and phonies.
I agree with Trump’s decision not to talk any more about how he was almost murdered, but incoming Vice President Vance should… a lot. In fact, I hope that Trump will continue to do what he does best as president — using his wit and populist rhetoric and negotiating skills to good effect — while the vice president’s office acts as the day-to-day juggernaut that ruthlessly dismantles the administrative state.
Klingenstein: Will Trump win? What does it depend on? If you were his political consultant, what would you advise him to do?
Ellmers: I think he will win by a significant margin — too big, as people are saying, for the Democrats to steal. My friend Jim Piereson, writing in The New Criterion, has predicted that Trump will win the popular vote by six points, take all the swing states, and get 339 electoral votes. That sounds right to me.
He seems to have been changed somewhat since he nearly took a bullet to the head. I would encourage him to remain upbeat and positive.
Klingenstein: What will happen after Trump if he is elected in 2024?
Ellmers: Again, hard to say. Of course the Left will launch its resistance campaign, but I don’t think anyone knows how much support it will have outside the radical fringe. Some of my friends think I’m too optimistic, but I suspect that some energy and panache has gone out of protesting and rioting since the 2020 Summer of Left-wing Love. There will still be violence by Antifa and others, but I don’t think it will have the same mainstream support. And we should not discount the anger the hard Left will direct at the Democrat party. The media and the Beltway establishment really screwed up this election by lying about Biden, and I think the radicals will not take kindly to having their agenda thwarted by the complacency and arrogance of the Democrat’s leadership.
Klingenstein: Is Vance MAGA? Is he the right choice for VP? He abhorred Trump before he lauded him. Does this make you hesitate?
Ellmers: It’s extremely important that Trump 1) went outside the decrepit establishment and picked someone who will help him fight the Beltway blob head-on; and 2) picked someone young and energetic who can carry on the MAGA agenda. That means Trump is thinking long-term. It was a good choice.
Having just finished Hillbilly Elegy, I would say that Trump's VP pick was an outstanding choice, the best he could have made from the outstanding candidates on his short list. A second brilliant move was his welcoming of RFK Jr. into his coalition. Here is the Kennedy clan's black (red?) sheep's Arizona Trump endorsement.
Trotsky’s (Misplaced) Faith in Man
On 20 August 1940, 84 years ago today, the long arm of Joseph Stalin finally reached Leon Trotsky in exile in Mexico City where an agent of Stalin drove an ice axe into Trotsky's skull. He died the next day. Yet another proof of how the Left eats its own.
The last days of Lev Davidovich Bronstein, better known as Leon Trotsky, prime mover of the October 1917 Russian Revolution, are the subject of Bertrand M. Patenaude's Trotsky: The Downfall of a Revolutionary (HarperCollins, 2009). It held my interest from the first page to the last, skillfully telling the story of Trotsky's Mexican exile, those who guarded him, and their failure ultimately to protect him from an agent of the GPU/NKVD sent by Stalin to murder him. Contrary to some accounts, it was not an ice pick that Ramon Mercader drove into Trotsky's skull, but an ice axe, a mountaineering implement far more deadly than an ice pick when used as a weapon. Here is how Trotsky ends his last testament, written in 1940, the year of his death:
Read the rest over at my Substack site.
Among those who guarded Trotsky in exile was a fascinating character in his own right, Jean van Heijenoort. I have two Substack entries about him: Thomas Merton and Jean van Hejenoort: A Tale of Two Idealists and Like a Moth to the Flame: A Sermon of Sorts on Romantic Folly. The latter begins:
Jean van Heijenoort was drawn to Anne-Marie Zamora like a moth to the flame. He firmly believed she wanted to kill him and yet he travelled thousands of miles to Mexico City to visit her where kill him she did by pumping three rounds from her Colt .38 Special into his head while he slept. She then turned the gun on herself. There is no little irony in the fact that van Heijenoort met his end in the same city as Lev Davidovich Bronstein, better known as Leon Trotsky. For van Heijenoort was Trotsky's secretary, body guard, and translator from 1932 to 1939.
In these days when Comrade Kamala threatens to preside over a once-great nation, I offer a salutary reflection on the horrors of communism with the help of Lev Kopelev. It begins:
While completing an invited essay for a collection of essays by dissident philosophers, I pulled down from the shelf many a volume on Marx and Marxism, including Steven Lukes, Marxism and Morality (Oxford UP, 1987). In the front matter of that very good book I found the following quotation from the hitherto unknown to me Lev Kopelev (emphases added):
Finally, a question for Tony Flood, one-time card-carrying member of the CPUSA, who knows more about communism than I ever will. Trotsky says somewhere something along the lines of: You may attempt to distance yourself from politics, but politics won't distance itself from you. What exactly did he say? And where did he say it?
I fear that old Trotsky is right, which is why we of the Coalition of the Sane and the Reasonable must fight, Fight, FIGHT!
Victor Davis Hanson on Tim Walz
13 hours ago. About 22 minutes long. Penetrating analysis of the recent rollercoaster of events, and excellent advice for Trump if he can rein in his ego sufficiently to take it and act on it.
More: The Harris Flop Would Be Scarier Than Her Flip
No one voted for the Biden-Harris ticket to borrow trillions sparking hyperinflation, to wage war on fossil fuels, to go woke, to welcome in 10 million illegal aliens, to abandon $50 billion in weapons to the terrorist Taliban, and to find America facing existential wars in Ukraine and the Middle East and soon perhaps over Taiwan.
But getting leftists elected requires fooling the American people into thinking their "moderate" campaign veneers will continue into their presidencies — even though they never do.
So, for now, Harris and her new vice presidential candidate, Tim Walz, will smother all their cherished left-wing positions — at least until November.The two left-wing chameleons will assume the temporary identities and policies of "moderates." That is a de facto admission that they know that the public does not want any of their true agendas.
The temporary metamorphosis means that the leftist nominees superficially feign agreement with what most Americans support –energy independence, low taxes, limited government, strong defense, deterrent foreign policy, secure borders, legal-only immigration, and assimilation rather than woke/DEI tribalism.
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are the most brazen and extreme examples of left-wing flip-floppers in memory.
Kamala the chameleon is stupider than Pelosi, more mendacious than Hillary, and farther to the left than Joey. And like him, nothing but a puppet. Her much-vaunted 'joy' is the laughing-gas inanity of an over-grown adolescent ingenue. She is of the ilk of AOC, she of the occasional cortex.
Michael Anton on “Celebration Parallax”
Here:
More tellingly, this charge is an example of something I call the “celebration parallax,” which is explained here. In brief, the celebration parallax holds that the same fact pattern is either true and glorious or false and scurrilous depending on who states it and, crucially, the perceived intent of the speaker.
So if someone says that the U.S. is experiencing levels of immigration that are unprecedented in human history, if it’s presumed or suspected that he might have doubts, then he is an evil racist. But when Bill Clinton or Joe Biden makes exactly the same point, well, that is A-OK! Because they are “good guys” who welcome “an unrelenting stream of immigration, nonstop, nonstop” (Joe Biden’s words). By the way, I leave to readers to intuit the difference between “unrelenting” (Joe’s word) and “ceaseless” (my word) and the reasons why the former is A-OK but the latter is somehow “racist.”
Dem-Fems for Kamala
As polls show America’s young men are lurching rightward at a rapid pace, the Democratic brand has finally evolved into the party of scolding shrews, nagging Karens and “preachy females,” as Dem dinosaur James Carville calls them.
Its image is tied to a type of unserious, self-involved, neurotic, dogmatic Dem-fem who insists on telling you her pronouns and whose highest goal is abortion on demand right up until the moment of birth.
She is terrified of men unless they are transgender or submissive “white dudes for Kamala” with man buns.
Now that Scranton Joe is out of the picture and Kamala is at the helm, the feminizing trend is accelerating the party into certain electoral oblivion (with the obvious caveat for election fraud).
I am glad that the astute Miranda threw in the caveat. After all, we know a priori that the Dems will cheat their asses off come November. If the end justifies the means, why not? It worked last time, so they figure it will work again. Compare the race card. The Dems have been playing it for years despite all the respectful, careful, and eminently sane explanations by conservatives that our positions are in no defensible sense of the term 'racist.' Why then don't the lefties listen to sweet reason and stop playing the card? Why don't they be nice and play fair? Because it works for them in attaining and maintaining power and control, which is what they are out for first, foremost, and forever. Power to do what? To tear everything down, so that, somehow, by some magic, utopia will arise.
For the same reason they can be expected to cheat in the upcoming election. You need to wake up from 'woke' and realize that our political enemies are just that enemies. They are enemies not just of us, but of the attainable good. They are not good people. I am mainly referring to the cadre Left (the core or skeletal drivers of the movement comprising the true believers, in Eric Hoffer's sense, and the cynics) and not the much larger group of useful idiots, who are morally and intellectually obtuse mediocrities.
It is foolish to underestimate the Kamala crazies, as Newt Gingrich has pointed out.
…………….
If any Kant aficionados are lurking about, my use of a priori above is the relative sense of the term Kant refers to in the second edition of his Critique of Pure Reason (1787) at B2:
. . . it has been customary to say , even of much knowledge that has been derived from empirical sources, that we have it or are capable of having it a priori, meaning thereby that we do not derive it immediately from experience, but from a universal rule — a rule which is itself, however, borrowed from experience. Thus we would say of a man who undermined the foundations of his house, that he might have known a priori that it would fall, that is, that he need not have waited for the experience of its actually falling. But he still could not know this completely a priori. For he first had to learn through experience that bodies are heavy, and therefore fall when their supports are withdrawn. (NKS tr., p. 43)
Past-Directed Gaslighting
An egregious example of present-directed gaslighting of the American people by the regime and the regime media is their dismissal of the numerous videos depicting Joe Biden's physical decrepitude as 'cheap/deep fakes.'
What then are we to call the lie being currently spread by the regime and its shills that Kamala Harris was never the 'border czar'? I call it past-directed gaslighting. This form of gaslighting is promoted by 'scrubbing' the historical record, a tried-and-true totalitarian tactic. Totalitarians want total control, and thus they want control over the past. They cannot erase the past, which is what it was, no matter what anyone says or writes. But they can bury the past in oblivion by altering the historical record. The burial in oblivion, the destruction of collective memory, suffices for their nefarious purposes.
Now the meaning of Christopher Wray's ludicrous 'shrapnel speculation' falls into place. Its purpose was to prepare the way for a future denial that the Trump assassination attempt ever happened.
How do I know that? Well, I don't know that, but what I do know about these deep-staters makes my speculation reasonable. Or do you have a better explanation for Wray's remark?
Death by DEI
Politicians are especially in danger, although we are all at risk. Christopher Rufo:
To say it plainly: there is no need for women in a president’s security detail. The Secret Service is an elite institution that can funnel down a large number of candidates to select the few who will protect the president. The best candidates—the strongest and fastest, the best marksmen—will be men. That’s just reality.
It’s a reality that the Secret Service is determined to circumvent. The agency itself has published its fitness standards in two parts: one for men, and a separate, less rigorous one for women.
And who is involved in "assassination prep?" Quite obviously, the Left:
The June issue of The New Republic is explicitly devoted to comparing Trump to Hitler, one of the greatest mass murderers in human history. It’s full of essays about how grim life will be under Dictator Trump. The editors justified this by saying, “Today, we at The New Republic think we can spend this election year in one of two ways. We can spend it debating whether Trump meets the nine or 17 points that define fascism. Or we can spend it saying, ‘He’s damn close enough, and we’d better fight.’”
Sunday Morning Sermon: Stay Calm
Stay calm. Take some deep breaths. Be careful what you say. Quietly prepare.
If you are a Democrat, ask yourself whether Joe Biden's open-border policy might have something to do with a breakdown in civil order, and who will profit from such a breakdown.
Rod Dreher's take.
Victor Davis Hanson on Assassination Porn and the Sickness on the Left. It is this sort of thing that Hanson has in mind.
Jonathan Turley weighs in, making a point Dmitri made in the combox.
This image by Evan Vucci of the AP is quickly becoming an iconic one. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Donald Trump, his face bloodied by a bullet, raised a fist and said, "Fight! fight! fight!" on Saturday as Secret Service agents helped him from his rally stage. In doing so, he "struck one of the iconic poses in US history," writes Nico Hines at the Daily Beast. The sentiment is a common one:
-
"Make no mistake, the image of a bloodstained Trump standing with one arm aloft instantly takes its place alongside the greatest photos in American history," writes Hines, up there with Neil Armstrong on the moon and the Times Square kiss. In his view, the moment is historic in part because it all but seals Trump's victory in November. [A naive prediction which shows a failure to grasp just how vicious and vile the cadre Left is. There will be further attempts to stop him, either by assassination or by some other means. As a defender of the American republic, Trump stands in the way of the Left's relentless effort to "fundamentally transform" (Obama) our country. It's a war over the soul of America. If you don't see that, you are a fool, whence it follows that Milquetoast Mitt and the nattering nabobs of his ilk are fools living in the past — to put it charitably. Time to ask yourself a serious question: Which side am I on? If you give the Right answer to that question, then you must ask yourself: what will I do to help insure that the Right side wins?]
Chicago under Democrat ‘Control’
Paul Butterfield Blues Band, Born in Chicago
I was born in Chicago in nineteen and forty one
I was born in Chicago in nineteen and forty one
Well my father told me
Son you had better get a gun.
True then, truer now.
And you still be ridin' with Biden? How stupid can you be? How self-destructive? How willfully self-enstupidated? And of course the scourge is not upon Chicago alone but upon every Dem-'controlled' city, county, state, and jurisdiction.
The humorous meme is now a reality: ammo vending machines are coming to stores. That's no joke.
I'm a staunch supporter of 2A rights, but this cannot be a good development. What's next? Ammo sales at drive-through liquor stores? "Would you like a box of ammo to go with your bottle of Hornitos tequila? Today's special is Federal 115 gr FMJ 9 mm hollow point."
To vote Democrat is to vote for more crime and the defunding of professional law enforcement The more crime, the more the burden of personal defense is placed on the citizen. But the average citizen is unlikely to get the proper training and to devote the time needed to become proficient in the use of firearms. The upshot is more accidental negligent discharges. In a well-functioning society, the laws are enforced and the criminal element is kept in check so that the citizen can go about his business without the need to, and the grave responsibility that comes with, 'packing heat.'
And you are still a Democrat? WTF is wrong with you?
Related: Shooting Up Chicago
David Brooks Interviews Steve Bannon
This is an important interview. I will add a few comments at the end. Excerpts:
You said something I’ve got to ask you about, that Trump’s a moderate. In what areas is the MAGA movement farther right than Trump?
BANNON: I think farther right on radical cuts of spending, No. 1. I think we’re much more hard-core on things like Ukraine. President Trump is a peacemaker. He wants to go in and negotiate and figure something out as a deal maker. I think 75 percent of our movement would want an immediate, total shutdown — not one more penny in Ukraine, and massive investigations about where the money went. On the southern border and mass deportations, I don’t think President Trump’s close to where we are. They all got to go home.
Also, on artificial intelligence, we’re virulently anti-A.I. I think big regulations have to come.
President Trump is a kindhearted person. He’s a people person, right? On China, I think he admires Xi Jinping. But we’re super-hawks. We want to see an elimination of the Chinese Communist Party.
[. . .]
Would you like to have some role?
No, no, no, no. We run this like a military command post. So I would only be giving up power. I went there before. I wanted out. I’m not a staff guy. I can’t do it. And also that’s not where the center of power is. It’s not how President Trump thinks. A big center of power is just media.
I call Trump a Marshall McLuhanesque figure. McLuhan called it, right? He says this mass thing called media, or what Pierre Teilhard de Chardin said of the noosphere, is going to so overwhelm evolutionary biology that it will be everything. And Trump understands that. That’s why he watches TV.
He understands that to get anything done, you have to make the people understand. And so therefore, constantly, we’re in a battle of narrative. Unrestricted narrative warfare. Everything is narrative. And in that regard, you have to make sure you forget about the noise and focus on the signal.
And remember, our audience is virtually all activists. So even though it may not be the biggest, it doesn’t have to be. It’s the people that are out there in the hinterland that are on the school boards. They now control so many state parties. Our mantra is you must use your agency. It’s a spiritual war. The divine providence works through your agency.
[. . .]
Do you know the demographics of these activists? Education? Race? Income?
First off, I would say 60 percent female. Female and over 40 years old. A lot of that, a third of them brought in by the pandemic, and the Moms for America. A ton of moms, women who didn’t read a lot of books in college. They’re not politically active. They had no interest. It was only later in life, as they became the C.O.O. of the American family, they realized how tough it was to make ends meet.
And then they saw the lack of education, and it was really the pandemic when they walked by the computer and saw what the kids are doing. They’re now at the tip of the spear.
Do you worry that your broader movement will be fatally poisoned by antisemitic elements, the conspiracy crazies?
We’re the most pro-Israel and pro-Jewish group out there. What I say is that not just the future of Israel but the future of American Jews, not just safety but their ability to thrive and prosper as they have in this country, is conditional upon one thing, and that’s a hard weld with Christian nationalism.
If I can make one comparison: Early in my career, I worked for Bill Buckley. His manner at National Review reminds me a little of some of the things you do. He created an intense sense of belonging: We’re the conservative movement. We’re all in this together. Every day we’re marching forward. But he also had a strong sense of who was a wack job, a conspiracist. And he was going to draw a line. Pat Buchanan was on the other side of the line.So what I admire about Buckley is obviously the intense thing of belonging. What I don’t admire is the no fight. It’s very much an intellectual debating society, right?
I use you and George Will as examples of this all the time. Brilliant guys, but this is a street fight. We need to be street fighters. This is going to be determined on social media and getting people out to vote. It’s not going to be debated on the Upper East Side or Upper West Side.
I’ve found that most people are pretty reasonable. You can have a conversation, and you’ll at least see where they’re coming from.
I think you’re dead [expletive] wrong.
That’s where we disagree.
No, it’s 100 percent disagree. What are you talking about? They think you’re an exotic animal. You’re a conservative, but you’re not dangerous. You’re reasonable. We’re not reasonable. We’re unreasonable because we’re fighting for a republic. And we’re never going to be reasonable until we get what we achieve. We’re not looking to compromise. We’re looking to win.
Now, the biggest element that Buckley had that the book “Bowling Alone” had, and you talk about, is the atomization of our society. There’s no civic bonding. There’s no national cohesion. There’s not even the Lions Club things that you used to have before. People tell me all the time: “You changed my life. I ran for the board of supervisors, and now I’m on the board of supervisors.” They have friends that they never had met before, and they’re in a common cause, and it’s changed their life. They’re on social media. Every day, they have action they have to do.
[. . .]
Trump is taking America back to its more constitutional Republic for the third time, and that drives the credentialed left nuts because he’s not just a class traitor, he’s a low-end guy from Queens. He’s not up to their social — it’s too tacky. It’s the gold. It’s the Trump stuff. They hate him. They hate him to a passionate level. They look at the noise around Trump and miss the signal of what’s really happening, and they can’t get past that, and they’re blinded by it.
BV's comments:
1) Bannon appreciates the terrible threat posed by unregulated A. I. Does Trump? I don't think so. The Democrats, in contrast to both Trump and Bannon, reside entirely in Cloud Cuckoo Land, with their overheated hyperventilation over 'climate change' and "boiling oceans" (Al Gore at Davos) as the greatest threat to humanity. That's plainly insane. They also fail to grasp the WW-3 threat, which Trump clearly does grasp, and they are in addition blind to the Balkanization and social unrest and rampant crime which cannot be avoided with wide-open borders. They also show contempt for the rule of law and national sovereignty.
2) Bannon is also right that Trump understands in his inarticulate, gut-level sort of way the messages of Marshall McLuhan and Teilhard de Chardin, two enormously influential intellectuals from the seminal 'sixties.
3) Bannon's talk of "unrestricted narrative warfare" leaves me uneasy. I agree with him that we are at war with the Left and thus with the contemporary Dem party, and that it must be defeated if our republic is to survive. I also agree that this cannot be achieved by having 'conversations' with them. It is far too late for that, they are mendacious to the core, as should be blindingly evident from the blatant 'cheap/deep fake' gaslighting the Biden administration has been engaging in, and in any case we and they share no common ground. They are out to overturn the American republic as she was founded to be, while we want her restoration.
What makes me uneasy is that Bannon's talk of "unrestricted narrative warfare" and "everything is narrative" suggest relativism about truth. Is Bannon a relativist about truth? Does he think that no narrative is true, sans phrase, and that every narrative is true only for those who tell it and hold it and are legitimated by it? If that is his view, then I oppose him. Aleksandr Dugin, I take it, is a relativist about truth. How close is Bannon ideologically to Dugin. I don't know but I need to find out.
There are some troublingly deep questions here. Right and Left are at war with each other, and so are their respective narratives. But if relativism reigns, and there is no "grand narrative" (Lyotard) or "meta-narrative" and every first-order narrative is only relatively true, then there is no hope of convincing or converting them: we have to crush them or be crushed by them. We are in the vicinity of Nietzsche's perspectivism according to which there is no truth, only interpretations from power-centers each out to expand its power. Perspectivism is the epistemology corresponding to Nietzsche's fundamental ontological thesis: "The world is the will-to-power and nothing besides." This onto-epistemology is the worldview that results from the death of God in Nietzsche's sense. No God, no truth, to paraphrase a line from The Gay Science.
But then what's with Bannon's talk of a "spiritual war" and "divine providence"? "It’s a spiritual war. The divine providence works through your agency." So God is on our side, but God is irrational absolute power? Sounds like a Muslim conception of God.
I am struggling to formulate the problem, but I am aware that I am not succeeding. I suppose I am not ready to give up on the possibility of reasoned discourse as a way to finding some common ground. But given what hyper-mendacious shytes our political enemies are, how these phucks will do anything to win, I find it hard not to agree with Bannon and see Brooks as just another impotent cuckservative clown along with George Will and the rest of the yap-and-scribble, do-nothing, leftist lapdog, bow-tie brigade. As Bannon said to Brooks,
You’re a conservative, but you’re not dangerous. You’re reasonable. We’re not reasonable. We’re unreasonable because we’re fighting for a republic. And we’re never going to be reasonable until we get what we achieve. We’re not looking to compromise. We’re looking to win.
No One is Above the Law!
No one is above the law, but only if the law is above everyone, impartial and uninfluenced by partisan will.
But that is not now the case with terminally mendacious, anti-civilizational leftists hard at work destroying our constitutional republic. And yet these brazen, serial liars never leave off posturing as defenders of 'democracy,' 'the Constitution,' and the 'rule of law.'
For these Orwellian subverters of language, 'rule of law' means rule of lawfare, 'democracy' means oligarchy, and the Constitution has no fixed meaning, but whatever meaning leftists wish to assign to it.
Unfortunately, conservatives and old-time Democrats are slow on the uptake, unable or perhaps unwilling to see what is happening in plain view. But the times they are a'changin.'
Right-Wing Bob approximates to the Biblical in the following lines.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’
How Left-Wing Conspiracies Work
VDH:
Since 2016, there has been a clear pattern to left-wing conspiracies—beyond the obvious fact that they traffic in lies, stereotypes, and paranoia to serve precise political agendas.
We now know that the conspiracy to cook up the Russian-collusion hoax—Donald Trump allegedly conniving with Vladimir Putin to rig the 2016 vote—was perpetrated by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Its funding was hidden by the Democratic National Committee, the law firm Perkins Coie, and Fusion GPS.
The Russian “disinformation” laptop hoax—the notion that the same Russians four years later created a fake Hunter Biden laptop to smear the Biden family on the eve of the first 2020 debate—was jumpstarted by the Biden campaign’s then-chief foreign policy advisor, current Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
There was never much evidence that a wayward bat or pangolin in a meat market birthed the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the efforts of China, Western and international health officials, and Dr. Fauci’s health bureaucrats to spread that lie.
The January 6th riot was certainly wrong and buffoonish. But the idea that it was an insurrection aiming to violently overthrow the U.S. government was also a left-wing myth fueled by the Democratic House leadership and the media.
All these schemes have their commonalities:
Related:
Niall Ferguson, We're All Soviets Now
Donald Trump: Enemy of the State
Of DEI and the Devil
Top o' the Stack. Excerpt:
The hard Left, which now controls the Democrat Party, is evil at its core. I don't say that every leftist, 'progressive,' and wokester is evil. Most of these folks are useful idiots. A large subset of them are superannuated, low-information, life-long Democrats who are pissing away their 'golden years' in empty socializing, hitting little white balls into holes, and other forms of Pascalian divertissement.