One of my brothers teaches high school science in Ottawa, Kansas. He has actually had his students do this experiment of putting a small number of frogs in cool water in a pan and slowly raising the temperature. It turns out that the frogs jump out of the pan when the water gets up higher than they like. You cannot boil frogs by incrementally raising the temperature a bit at a time. Whether you can actually boil humans that same way is not an experiment his students have undertaken. But frogs, anyway, are smart enough to get out of the water when it is uncomfortable.
=shrugs= Try it if you like. High school science teachers often have a supply of frogs for dissection purposes. You can still find "frog's legs" in various preparations at French restaurants. And the Cajun's will gig them.
It’s like the “own nothing and be happy idea.” Those who own nothing have nothing to lose, so why not destroy it, but those of us who are invested in society (i.e., with a 401K, etc.) are not going to rip the joint down like the Occupy Wall Street types.
When we take ownership, and that idea can be quite broad, it makes us more responsible, more likely to behave and just be better all-around since we are invested in the rewards that make it worthwhile.
So, how do we get the kids on board to own something and be happy – especially in this era where it’s getting harder and harder to make it?
I spent quite a lot of time in 2011 and 2012 at Occupy Wall Street gatherings and encampments in Lawrence, Kansas, Kansas City, Missouri, Saint Louis, Missouri, Missoula, Montana, Springfield, Missouri, and I can assure you that neither me nor any of the people at those events and encampments wanted to "rip the joint down" at all. Our camp in Kansas City, Missouri was directly across a small street from the Kansas City feral reserveless scam offices and we put together a march on the IRS building in KCMO. Many of us were Ron Paul people. But, of course, the fact that you were unwilling to do anything during the Occupy protests doesn't necessarily mean that you love the Feral Reserveless scam, and the fact that you religiously and obediently pay just as much feral income tax every year as you can doesn't mean that you love the Infernal Revenue Disservice. You probably think that by obeying the laws you are protecting yourself, not knowing that unless you are former fbi director James Comey and have a bunch of feral judges in your back pocket you won't be able to defend yourself from the law by actually obeying the law, and you won't be able to do his clever trick of getting a judge to dismiss the case against him because reasons. But you are certainly aware that it is harder and harder to "make it."
Didja know that in 1932 the price of gold was officially set at $20 per ounce and had been since 1792? The mint act of 1792 defined the dollar as a twentieth of an ounce of fine gold. Today it is $4,130 or so. Which means that if your family had saved $100K in 1932 by buying gold they would have gotten 5,000 ounces of gold. If they had been very clever and hidden that gold from the evil machinations of the vile mass murderer FDR and his minions (which was true for about 80% of gold coins in circulation at the time which were neither turned in during the amnesty through 1935 nor confiscated through the end of the unconstitutional ban on Americans owning gold in 1975) that gold would today sell for about $20.65 million. In other words, over 99.5% of the value of the dollar has been deliberately destroyed since 1932 by the evil and terrible ugly demon worshippers who infest the district of corruption (DC).
You know why they have deliberately impoverished American families? Because the American family stands between the bureau rats and politicians in DC and the children of those families. And all the bureau rats and all the politicians in DC want to rape, enslave, and murder the children of all Americans. So, while you are busy finding ways for Americans to take ownership of tyranny, the tyrants are just really enthusiastic about destroying you and your family.
You might want to look into how to get "self directed" 401 k and pension plans. You can actually have physical possession of gold and silver you buy with self directed funds, and you really cannot expect to keep any of the value in a bank account or pension fund account. They have been destroying the value of the money for a long time. You may think that Wall Street keeps setting new all time highs for stocks, but in terms of the real spending power of the dollar as measured by gold, the stock market today is lower than it was in 1929. But you prolly don' wanna hear that. It would be easier for you to dismiss me as some sort of bad person who wants to "rip it all down" because I bothered to show up after the great financial crisis at some public gatherings of people who were unhappy with how the system was rigged. And, you know, we must be the crazy ones, huh?
I marched in DC in a few anti-war protests during the aughts and what I noticed that was very different from those Saturday marches and the OW protests were the encampments. Who can camp out for weeks? (And I’ve tent camped/ backpacked in the woods a gazillion times for a vacation). The people I saw at the OW protests in my town looked like they had no cares in the world and it was a big long party. So, mea culpa for making generalizations for all, but I still think it was a bad look.
I followed events when Occupy was happening. I am sure different instances had different characters, but there were some where a lot of really gross stuff was going on at a couple of them. Or so it was reported, at least. So yeah, there were definitely some bad looks at some of the Occupy events.
One of the really interesting films that came out of the financial crisis was "Margin Call" which ends up with the finance guy from Europe eating a mighty fine meal in the company executives' dining room. Every character in the film has a huge salary and nice place to live. A much more interesting film was "The Big Short" which shows a whole lot of houses, restaurants, fancy office buildings, private jets, but does take about ten seconds of screen time to show a homeless encampment. There are thousands of homeless encampments in America and there are millions of Americans who lost their homes 2007 to 2010, but that's probably not who you think were having to "camp out for weeks." It's nice having a home.
I've had homes. I've slept in cars. I've slept in tents. Don't currently have a home, a car, or a tent. The horrors of the system that you support with your taxes persist. So do I.
Probably you don't see the homeless because you pay for local authorities to push them out of town or further into the forests. They are certainly likelier to hide from you than from people who seek them out and help them. But, if you go looking, you can find them. Maybe while you and your friends are having a really nice meal at Thanksgiving day after tomorrow you can think about whether you have a blanket or a pair of gloves or something you might find not being used and go looking one of these days. You know, to uphold conservative values, Christian giving, and thoughtfulness toward those who had more but now have much, much less. Because monetary inflation and the "you'll have no privacy, own nothing, and be happy" crowd are really very cruel. And you? You don't have to choose to be cruel.
Of course, you don't have to choose to be a part of a system that hurts your neighbours, either, but here we are.
With You all the way - except on the Kirk psyop. LOL! I watched the "spurting blood," saw it hit His white sleeve and His arm - and then vanish! (ai/CGI created.) And They blurred out His mouth... Was He grinning with duping delight?
Anyway, I hope to see Many not creating controversy by refusing to be subject to the system. Rather I hope We conditionally accept the offer to be subject... "I will be happy to [do that, give You that, get one of those, etc.] IF You prove I am in Your jurisdiction."
Any who have withdrawn consent from that psychopathic legal/governmafia mess are sovereign, and there is no proof of being in anyOne's jurisdiction.
On the Kirk thing, my point is not dependent upon what did or did not happen. Millions believed it did happen, and they were openly celebrating like gleeful little ghouls.
Fair enough. I have seen no One displaying that behavior, but maybe I don't get out enough.
Still and all, I would not put it past Them to write it into Their script and perform it on TV. Plenty of other things They have done that with.
Been a while but there was some "national news" event and I knew someOne from the area and They said it never happened... Wish My old brain could remember the details...
I do not doubt that quite a few things are fabricated. I am sure of it. However, it is essential that we continue to use our senses, rather than simply assuming that absolutely everything that ever happens is a psyop.
One minor nitpicking note: the poll you reference in the introduction targets "likely voters" (LV). Many political polls do: if you say you're not going to vote, they would ask no more question.
There are good reasons to believe many anarchist ideas would find more support among likely non-voters; unfortunately, this category is almost never tabbed separately. You can of course infer some data from the differences between polls targeting LV and registered voters (RV), but not much.
First....you are not a bad person. I did not want to pray or forgive anyone after Charlie was assassinated either. I want names and some justice.
Second, if they ever come to my door for my guns, I don't believe I could comply. But I might just not answer the door rather than firing the first shot of revolution. 🤷♀️
Violence at this moment, along with population movements, will be the pretext to cyber walls and digital checkpoints as Big Brother Watch has warned in Britain. But its the same across multiple countries.
Right. They're waiting for an excuse. Violence is what they know. Peace—that, they don't know how to deal with. But peace does not have to be acquiescent or lazy. Peace can get busy!
I admit that I've been paralyzed by pure depression for awhile because every direction is a complete brick wall, with totally psychologically stunted crazy little demonic amoeba ppl consuming each other violently in a petri dish and who can't figure anything out. Because they don't physically contain brains. Or souls. They just spew vomit consume and eat, like satanic nonsense.
Cool. Let's talk about it and bat a few ideas around. I will start.
I have discovered that the most critical first step is to stop concerning oneself with what other people think and do and say and believe.
I know that stupid "democracy" forces us to care, because what other people believe gets forced upon us by their votes. But we aren't going to change that anytime soon, so thinking about it all the time just makes us crazy and angry and afraid of what they'll do next. And fear is a big source of depression.
Here are a few realities that we must come to grips with. I did during covid, and while it made me unhappy at first, now that it has settled in, it has not only made me happier, but stronger and better.
The first of these was to recognize that a certain percentage of humans are always going to have terrible ideas. They are going to believe the worst crap. They are going to be dangerous. They are going to be a threat in any situation.
That may seem like blackpill, but it's just the fact. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we stop believing that "if only we try a little harder, we can convince them." That will never happen. The sooner we accept that it will never happen, the happier we are.
Instead, we focus on ourselves. We make ourselves the hero of the story. Make yourself the main character. Don't worry about humanity as a whole. Be civil and polite and make connections with other people—and especially other heroes—but don't worry about "people." People as a whole are a mess, and that is never going to change. No matter how hard we fret about it.
If we do any preaching or concern ourselves in any way with reaching out to others, it is never to the "Mass" but only to "The Remnant," as Nock named them. (https://mises.org/mises-daily/isaiahs-job) We focus on OUR people.
And EVEN THERE, we recognize that no two people are going to agree. So we don't let ourselves get bent out of shape that even our fellows have shades of difference. So long as we agree on the basics (do not trespass the person, property, or liberty of another), our other differences are just interesting topics for conversation.
Are you with me so far?
I have also written about this in the context of the DN:
I love all of that. I was actually late waking up about covid, so I would have been one of those enemies in the mass of society. And agreement isn't even the axiom of cooperation.
I first read this in 2020 when pondering why people weren't fighting back and disobeying the totalitarian mandates. Written during the several month buildup of the plandemic, after Event 201, a few weeks before CNN puffed up Fauci in a piece about experimental mRNA vaccines, around the same time the first whispers of a bad flu in China were shared in media. The psychological "priming" period:
Would You Stand Up to an Authoritarian Regime or Conform? Here's The Science
"They argued that human behaviour is governed by two complementary, and very different, "logics".
According to the logic of consequence, we choose our actions like a good economist: weighing up the costs and benefits of the alternative options in the light of our personal objectives. This is basically how we get what we want.
But there is also a second logic, the logic of appropriateness. According to this, outcomes, good or bad, are often of secondary importance – we often choose what to do by asking "What is a person like me supposed to do in a situation like this"?
...
Authoritarian regimes
Both logics are required to create and maintain an authoritarian regime. To ensure that we make the "right" personal choices, an oppressive state's main tools are carrots and sticks – rewarding conformity and punishing even a hint of rebellion.
...
The authoritarian state is therefore concerned above all with preserving ideology – defining the "right" way to think and behave – so that we can unquestioningly conform to it.
This can certainly help explain the horrors of Nazi Germany – showing it's not primarily a matter of individual evil. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt famously argued, the atrocities of the Holocaust were made possible by normal people, manipulated into conforming to a horribly abnormal set of behavioural norms.
...
Would you rebel?
So how would you or I fair in Gilead? We can be fairly confident that most of us would conform (with more or less discomfort), finding it difficult to shake the feeling that the way things are done is the right and appropriate way.
...
So it may be that those who have the most to lose and/or are keen to climb the social ladder are particularly likely to conform. And, of course, if other members of your social circle are conforming, you may think it's the "appropriate" thing to do.
Few will fight Gilead after carefully weighing up the consequences – after all, the most likely outcome is failure and obliteration. What drives forward fights against an oppressive society is a rival vision – a vision of equality, liberty and justice, and a sense that these should be defended, whatever the consequences."
FF - After publishing that long piece one might think the author, Nick Chater, would've seen the totalitarianism descending across the world and sounded the alarm. Surely he'd have been one of the few on the front line writing about the desirability and virtue of freedom, his vision of equality, liberty and justice.
But, nigh. Instead he was rationalizing and justifying the imposition of totalitarianism, describing opposition to mandates as "friction" that would go away over time. And here is his writing that followed about applying the same type of behavioural modification to impose Climate totalitarianism, that will also need to overcome "friction":
While Chater does a decent job explaining the types who would rebel, oppose totalitarianism in basic digestible language I question the timing and placement of his earlier story and what else his public mind "priming" has been intended to achieve. He speaks partial truths, the studies he references contain more useful information about how to resist totalitarianism and replace it with a better vision for governance. But not the whole truth. And what is missing is probably more important that what is contained.
"What drives forward fights against an oppressive society is a rival vision – a vision of equality, liberty and justice, and a sense that these should be defended, whatever the consequences."
I Absolutely believe that to be true. Is why I saved and have shared that link.
I view the writer skeptically. Both the timing of the piece, October, 2019, and his subsequent writings, I think he writes for a purpose that does not share the vision he writes in those words. Or maybe he does? In a sort of "Freedom is Slavery" Newspeak way. And so while what he writes contains truths, eternal truth like part you and I like, I believe it omits other truths, by design or ignorance.
Context is everything. And given that Event 201 occurred exactly one week after Chater's article, a "first infection" a few weeks after that, followed by CNN pushing Fauci's mRNA experimental biotech in an article just a few weeks later, Plandemic is the only possibility that makes sense to me.
And in that Plandemic narrative that was being constructed, the public mind being psychologically primed for, Chater being a mind "scientist," the narrative was to cast Trump as the Totalitarian. His article, without mentioning it, implies that Trump was the totalitarian to be wary of. And the earliest narrative of the plandemic was that Trump was totalitarian to resist, not trust with power. From the earliest "xenophobe" accusations against Trump and portrayal of him as aspiring dictator(sorry, not sorry for link wall, but good stuff for context most have forgotten):
The link wall is sort of a transitional story, from declarations that Trump was the totalitarian who was inflating fear of infections disease to gain power, impose his agenda to assertions that Trump *not* being more "aggressive" (totalitarian) in health mandates was totalitarian, the inversion of meanings (Newspeak) in real time.
I think Chater's piece, while containing truth also was part of a larger narrative that was being constructed when he wrote it. Trump's travel ban WAS unprecedented, authoritarian, disconnected from real medical, biological science; it was the original sin of the plandemic. Unwitting ignorance is what I chalk that up to, Trump's lack of intellectual curiosity and vigor, pure instinctual leadership being the progenitor of his response. That, followed by his Pottinger/Fauci/Birx/Pence-inspired national lockdown gave credibility to the totalitarian narrative. Only the inversion of what constituted being totalitarian, and the imposition of harsh lockdowns, mask mandates, 'vaccine' mandates, etc that his erstwhile totalitarian accusers adopted as their own totalitarianism makes him seem like the pro-freedom guy, "I didn't mandate anything."
I shared a breakdown of an old popular meme as an example of psychological priming a few years ago. The meme was debunked by actual experts. But the message of it resounded with those who wanted to believe fiction over fact who continued to share it because they found fiction aspirational. No doubt what they found aspirational years before also ensured their beliefs and actions during the plandemic were similarly disconnected from reality:
And I am now fully aware that there is a plurality or majority of any population who will be a threat, rather than allies, in any exigent circumstances.
And I know that a vision of freedom is the best way to proceed.
You make a plausible case. However, I got this opinion from an AI source: “[R]ight-wing extremist groups currently show more visible revolutionary tendencies linked to insurrection. The left also experiences unrest but is less associated with organized revolutionary violence at this time.” That opinion was supported by examples since 2001, such as the attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The opinion may be wrong. One AI source admitted that other AI sources tend to have a left-wing bias. Besides, members of the Heritage Foundation apparently favor a “second American Revolution,” which they seem to think will be bloodless if the left allows it to be. That may have figured into AI's opinion. Perhaps a distinction should be drawn between MAGA conservatives (aka national conservatives or populist nationalists) and Freedom Conservatives (who are more like classical liberals).
The recent claim—totally absurd—that there is more right-wing than left-wing violence was bolstered significantly by a ridiculous, heavily flawed study by Cato. Now, it's like that stupid "99% of scientists agree on climate change" trope. It's garbage, but everyone just says it as a matter of fact.
I was previously unaware of the CATO Institute's report on political violence, and I found its results surprising, as I had the impression that political violence is more common on the left. Since CATO seemed to be somewhat right-leaning, I would have expected the report to confirm my impression. According to two AI sources I checked, the CATO Institute is the foremost libertarian think tank in the world. According to Media Bias/Fact Check, CATO has a right-center bias but is rated “high” on factual reporting. Numerous articles are available online that either criticize or support CATO's findings. Predictably, criticism comes predominantly from the right and support comes from the left. I decline to spend my time reading all the reports and trying to evaluate them. I prefer to leave that up to some trusted source, such as Reason magazine. According to various media ratings, Reason is said to lean slightly right, and according to two AI sources, Reason is widely considered to be the foremost libertarian magazine in the world. Reason produced an article on the CATO report. (See “Assessing the Extent of Political Violence in America” by Ilya Somin dated 9/11/25, which you can find online.) According to the article, the author of the CATO report, Alex Nowrasteh (who is primarily known as an expert on, and supporter of, school choice), “finds the overall incidence of such violence is much lower than many assume. The 9/11 attacks dominate the stats, accounting for 83% of total deaths. Setting that aside, right-wing violence is significantly more prevalent than the left-wing variety.”
The CATO report's summary of the data includes:
"Terrorists inspired by Islamist ideology are responsible for 87 percent of those murdered in attacks on US soil since 1975…. Right-wingers are the second most common motivating ideology, accounting for...11 percent of the total. The definition here of right-wing terrorists includes those motivated by white supremacy, anti-abortion beliefs, involuntary celibacy (incels), and other right-wing ideologies.
"Left-wing terrorists murdered...about 2 percent of the total. Left-wing terrorists include those motivated by black nationalism, anti-police sentiment, communism, socialism, animal rights, environmentalism, anti-white ideologies, and other left-wing ideologies. Those murders that are politically motivated by unknown or other ideologies are a vanishingly small percentage, which is unsurprising because terrorists typically want attention for their causes."
CATO are not right-wing. CATO are beltway libertarians who like going to all the right cocktail parties.
Incels are a "right-wing" ideology? WHY?
How are they defining right-wing? I define right as being conservatives and libertarians, with anarchists being furthest to the right. (The unit of measure being human freedom in inverse proportion to size of government.) Do they define right-wing like all the other people addled by and suckling at the teat of a political spectrum created by panicky Marxists? With fascism at the far right? (A spectrum with no unit of measure whatsoever.) The fact that they included "incels" tells us a lot about what they wanted to accomplish with this "study."
Also, why start at 1975? That is almost exactly the moment when the insane paroxysm of leftist violence ebbed. In 1969, there was a bombing every week. In the years between 1960 and 1975, there was so much left-wing violence that whatever they are calling "right-wing" today would have to continue for another 100 years to match it. And they conveniently left that out.
And they left out everything before that too—all the bombings and assassinations and mayhem from the late 19th century on up. Almost all of which was done by Reds of one flavor or another.
This study was designed to give everyone a talking point, and from a "reputable," "right-wing" source.
I have studied this topic for years. CATO is lying. Not wrong—lying.
I'm unqualified to argue with you about the issue because, unlike you, I haven't studied it. Prior to checking with an AI source, I had the impression that most political violence came from the left. However, my opinion was based entirely on anecdotal evidence. Studies stating my opinion is mistaken came as a surprise to me. Still, I'm inclined to change my mind when confronted with what appears to be scientifically respectable evidence. Now I don't know what to believe. There's evidence on each side of the issue.
The AIs I used were Copilot Search (mainly) and Gemini (which I understand is Google's). According to each AI, several studies (not just Cato's) showed right-wing violence exceeded left-wing violence by a wide margin. However, I find it plausible that studies about the issue are biased or are misreported for two reasons. First, academia is dominated by progressives. Second, one AI I asked about AI bias admitted that other AI sources are somewhat left-leaning.
You seem to be right about incels. They may be commonly thought to be right leaning because they're often anti-feminist. However, one AI said that contrary to common stereotypes, a study shows the group to lean slightly left of center, with about 39% leaning right and 45% leaning left. In the Cato study the stereotype may have been mistakenly accepted. However, that study classified many more groups as left leaning. Besides, according to information I got online, the Cato study began with 1975 because it's the first year for which there are records of such violence.
I don't regard leftism as the opposite of libertarianism for three reasons. First, the opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism, whose extremes are anarchism and totalitarianism, respectively. Second, there are many self-identified left libertarians. Third, as Hyrum and Verlan Lewis argue in “The Myth of Left and Right,” those terms have no consistent definitions but have different meanings in different contexts. I find it more useful to replace “left” with “collectivist” and “right” with individualist” because “collectivist” and “individualist” have more clear and specific meanings, and they don't change meaning in different contexts. As an individualist libertarian, I favor anarcho-capitalism. However, there are collectivist libertarians. Anarcho-communists are an example. An entirely consensual commune may be inefficient, but it's not unlibertarian.
I don't share your opinion of the Cato Institute. It's generally recognized as the most influential libertarian think tank. I've more often seen its findings cited in news sources in support of libertarian policies than the findings of all other libertarian organizations combined. The Foundation for Economic Education and the Competitive Enterprise Institute seem to come in a distant second and third. How often do you see them cited in news sources?
I've been reading Reason magazine since about 1980. During the 1980s, I subscribed to several libertarian magazines. All but Reason went out of business. Besides Reason, the only one whose name I can remember is Libertarian Review. As I recall, Reason had the reputation of being the most right-leaning. Currently, Reason has by far the largest circulation. Though no accurate figures are available for other libertarian publications, I suspect Reason outsells all the rest combined.
I wonder whether we see things differently because of our different political backgrounds. Unlike you, I was never a conservative. Nor was I ever any sort of “leftist.” I had no conscious political ideology until I was 18. From that age until I was 33, I called myself a liberal, but I wasn't a “left liberal.” I was a liberal in the original sense of the word, a classical liberal. I became a relatively consistent individualist libertarian in 1972 as the result of a process of reasoning, but I didn't have a name for my political philosophy until 1976. Except for a brief period when I registered Republican to vote for Ron Paul, I've been registered only as nonpartisan and as Libertarian.
I didn't mean to click on "like." I was trying to click on "expand full comment." I wonder whether this happens often. I'll never intentionally "like" my own comments.
The above comment is in reference to a comment of my own that I made above, not in reference to any of your comments. However, my reply did not appear in the right place.
"I wonder whether we see things differently because of our different political backgrounds."
—Possibly. But it would be more my anti-leftism than my conservatism. I became aware of the wickedness of leftism far earlier. Once I came to understand that leftism fails every time it is fully applied, and produces nothing but oppression and mountains of corpses, that was that. I was opposed to leftism long before the stretch began during which I could be called a "conservative."
—Why would I care what gets cited in news sources, when the vast majority of news sources are run by lefties who engage in even more taqqiya than the most radical Islamist terrorist?
"An entirely consensual commune may be inefficient, but it's not unlibertarian."
—Correct. These exist, but they are incredibly rare. The vast majority of leftists don't want to create worker-owned factories—they want to seize factories created by others.
"according to information I got online, the Cato study began with 1975 because it's the first year for which there are records of such violence."
—The left, here and in Europe and Asia, engaged in unbelievable amounts of bombings, building takeovers, hostage taking, assassinations, riots, murders, assaults, arson, etc, for the better part of two decades, and it is all incredibly well documented. It is complete nonsense that 1975 is the first year for such records. This would make CATO the laziest think tank in the world.
Except it's worse than that. CATO is in on it. They did this study because it creates the narrative.
And "Oh look, it's coming from the most influential libertarian think tank. Not lefties, but from their own people. That makes it more credible."
Except CATO aren't our people. They're operatives. And this is the proof. The record of left-wing violence is so voluminous that a child could find it. It's not that CATO couldn't—it's that they didn't want to.
"They may be commonly thought to be right leaning because they're often anti-feminist"
—Even this is a problem. The modern definition of "right-wing" seems to be "everything bad." Racism. Sexism. Evil corporations. Bad cops. It's incoherent. But everyone just buys it, because it's been burrowed into our thinking since the early 1920s at least.
Somin continues, "'Right' and 'left' are somewhat arbitrary and incoherent categories. Thus, people can argue about some of Alex's coding choices here...Nonetheless, the coding here mostly tracks the way these terms are generally used in current US political discourse.” Also: “Alex's data does not include death threats, which are surely far more common than actual murders or attempts...I am not aware of any good data on the relative prevalence of death threats by ideology...But over twenty years of libertarian commentary on law and public policy issues...every single one of the threats I have gotten was from right-wingers...”
I thought other scientifically respectable research studies might show that the conclusions of the CATO study were mistaken, but an AI source said this: “Multiple studies show that historically and in recent years, right-wing political violence has been more frequent, more lethal, and more sustained than left-wing violence...” Another query got this response: “According to multiple recent analyses, right-wing extremist groups have caused the majority of politically motivated fatalities—accounting for roughly 75% to 80% of domestic terrorism deaths since 2001.” “Domestic terrorism” is defined as “unlawful acts of violence or threats within a country, aimed at intimidating or coercing civilians or influencing government policy, carried out by individuals or groups from the same country.”
The CATO study didn't cover property damage, which I assumed had been caused mostly by left-wing groups. However, an AI source reports that “property damage is more frequently associated with left-wing extremist groups, but overall, right-wing extremists cause a greater share of political violence and property destruction in the United States.”
Given my lack of expertise on the subject, I'm not qualified to evaluate the studies. However, I'm inclined to accept expert opinion until I have good reason to do otherwise, which I currently lack.
Apparently, concerning subjects that involve values, such as ethics, politics, and economics, people tend to engage in wishful thinking. As Francis Bacon said, “What a man had rather were true he more readily believes.” When the facts conflict with their preferences, people tend to engage in rationalization, which Ayn Rand defined as “a process of not perceiving reality, but of attempting to make reality fit one's emotions.”
On Christmas morning when I was five years old, I observed some anomalies, such as that my Mom's handwriting on a card differed from Dad's but was the same as Santa's, there were no sleigh tracks or reindeer tracks in the snow in the yard or on the roof, etc. I debated with my parents about the existence of Santa Claus, and despite their best efforts, I won the debate. I wanted to believe that Santa was real. But I preferred an unpleasant truth to a pleasant falsehood. I haven't changed my mind since then.
If a man habitually accepts the side of an issue he wishes were true, by chance, he'll be right about half the time. If he bases his opinion on the empirical evidence and logical arguments of which he is aware, he'll sometimes err, but his chances of being right are significantly greater than even.
Perhaps the people at CATO and Reason are mistaken about the political violence issue, but they seem to be motivated by the desire to know the truth. I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive them.
You are right that confirmation bias is a bitch. But I began studying this issue 25 years ago. I am not wrong. This study was curated to achieve this result.
Reason and CATO are the worst libertarian think tanks. I was undoing Reason's garbage arguments (on open borders and same-sex marriage) using libertarian principles BEFORE I was even a libertarian. Tom Woods refers to them as "mediocrities." I really hate publicly badmouthing anyone else in the movement—but this study pushed me over the edge. I will NEVER forgive CATO, because they are part of the machine masquerading as a libertarian think tank. And Reason is suffering (as so many libertarians do) from the narcissism of small differences—desperate to distinguish themselves from conservatives even more than they are from the left. Despite the fact that leftism is the literal opposite of libertarianism!
And the more time they spend within the Beltway, the more eager they are to service the left and the machine.
I don't like Reason, but I can forgive them. CATO, No.
(And all this anger of mine is directed entirely at them, John, not at you or your comments.)
AI is reading what Google allows it to read, and drawing from that.
Beginning in 2015, Google began heavily curating its search results. Downgrading and eventually removing certain results, while punching up others. They are curating a narrative.
Reason #1: they have jobs so they can support themselves, their families, and all the folks here and around the world who are fed by the government for one reason or another.
Well, the liberal conservatives may be wired against allowing themselves to be provoked into a civil war, but if the Left keeps pushing, at some point the balance scale will tip.
The Covid experiment was a big eye-opener. It gave the bad guys a list, who obeyed (and even turned in others) and who said, ‘hell no!’ So if the Left ever again get back in power, likely by rigging elections—they’re still doing it—then they will eventually get down to using that list to make their takeover complete.
By the way, in one of my books, 'Crossing Over,’ I write about what a second American Civil War would be like. You might want to check it out.
The difficulty lies in knowing when to stick one's neck out. In order to do that, people need to feel like they have little or nothing to lose. But the trend has been to move things along so slowly that that point is never reached quickly enough. Each loss of freedom is accepted, and then even defended (even by conservatives) as the new status quo.
I expected my fellows to resist covid tyranny. A few did, but not to the degree I expected.
At my Walmart, I was the only one not wearing a mask. 200 people milling around like compliant zombies. Probably 30 percent knew that it was all bull$h1t, but they still complied, leaving me as the ONLY one actually standing up for anything.
Have you seen the film "Casablanca"? There is a marvellous "arc of character" for Rick Blaine. Near the beginning when Ugati is being arrested Rick says, "I stick my neck out for no one." By the end of the film when he's shooting Major Strasser, he has worked out that he cannot be safe any longer running a saloon in "unoccupied" France. There is always a straw that breaks the camel's back. But, many of today's Americans couldn't tell you the difference between straw and hay.
It is definitely worth watching. Back when I was the owner of a mighty fine 840 square foot house there was a DVD of "Casablanca" in one of my book shelves. That dvd and the books are in storage in Ohio for reasons. I used to watch it every year, sometimes on the anniversary of its release, sometimes on the "Day of Deceit" the 7th day of the 12th month, because that's mentioned in the film. "It's December 1941 in Casablanca. What time is it in New York?" asks Rick Blaine and Sam says, "My watch broke."
Good points, and good on you for resisting. But, I think there is always a tipping point, the straw, the law that goes too far. And the resultant pushback. The process you describe (conservatives never fighting back, just retreating redrawing the line, that's true sometimes, but not always. There is always a minority, likely 33%, of people who will, at some point, fight back. Just like the American revolution. A third were loyalists to the Crown, a third refused to join either side, just went about their business as much as they could, and a third did fight back.
But there are certainly, as you know, people in other parts of the world, who either did not fight back, or were too tentative, and were crushed and enslaved. The Russians come to mind. So they had to endure 75 years of Totalitarian repression before they finally rid themselves of the soul-crushing commies.
For the sake of my mental health, I have to believe that Americans will never totally cave to tyranny. I think the enemy believes that as well, that's why they are trying to 'replace' Americans with malleable third world dregs.
Yes. And part of the purpose of importing outsiders is to get people who have no connection to the country, the land, or the people, who will thus have no problem being paid to act as footsoliders against us.
One of my brothers teaches high school science in Ottawa, Kansas. He has actually had his students do this experiment of putting a small number of frogs in cool water in a pan and slowly raising the temperature. It turns out that the frogs jump out of the pan when the water gets up higher than they like. You cannot boil frogs by incrementally raising the temperature a bit at a time. Whether you can actually boil humans that same way is not an experiment his students have undertaken. But frogs, anyway, are smart enough to get out of the water when it is uncomfortable.
Oh that’s awesome. So that stupid aphorism isn’t even based on reality!
=shrugs= Try it if you like. High school science teachers often have a supply of frogs for dissection purposes. You can still find "frog's legs" in various preparations at French restaurants. And the Cajun's will gig them.
Good points.
It’s like the “own nothing and be happy idea.” Those who own nothing have nothing to lose, so why not destroy it, but those of us who are invested in society (i.e., with a 401K, etc.) are not going to rip the joint down like the Occupy Wall Street types.
When we take ownership, and that idea can be quite broad, it makes us more responsible, more likely to behave and just be better all-around since we are invested in the rewards that make it worthwhile.
So, how do we get the kids on board to own something and be happy – especially in this era where it’s getting harder and harder to make it?
Very good points. But maybe it would be better to get them ownership in something new—something outside of "the system."
I can’t think of anything better than owning a house. We all need a home and extra monthly payments on a mortgage builds more equity.
Agreed. There might be some better ways to do it, though. Tereza at the Third Paradigm has some interesting ideas. https://substack.com/@thirdparadigm
How to Dismantle An Empire - intriguing - thanks!
🔥
I spent quite a lot of time in 2011 and 2012 at Occupy Wall Street gatherings and encampments in Lawrence, Kansas, Kansas City, Missouri, Saint Louis, Missouri, Missoula, Montana, Springfield, Missouri, and I can assure you that neither me nor any of the people at those events and encampments wanted to "rip the joint down" at all. Our camp in Kansas City, Missouri was directly across a small street from the Kansas City feral reserveless scam offices and we put together a march on the IRS building in KCMO. Many of us were Ron Paul people. But, of course, the fact that you were unwilling to do anything during the Occupy protests doesn't necessarily mean that you love the Feral Reserveless scam, and the fact that you religiously and obediently pay just as much feral income tax every year as you can doesn't mean that you love the Infernal Revenue Disservice. You probably think that by obeying the laws you are protecting yourself, not knowing that unless you are former fbi director James Comey and have a bunch of feral judges in your back pocket you won't be able to defend yourself from the law by actually obeying the law, and you won't be able to do his clever trick of getting a judge to dismiss the case against him because reasons. But you are certainly aware that it is harder and harder to "make it."
Didja know that in 1932 the price of gold was officially set at $20 per ounce and had been since 1792? The mint act of 1792 defined the dollar as a twentieth of an ounce of fine gold. Today it is $4,130 or so. Which means that if your family had saved $100K in 1932 by buying gold they would have gotten 5,000 ounces of gold. If they had been very clever and hidden that gold from the evil machinations of the vile mass murderer FDR and his minions (which was true for about 80% of gold coins in circulation at the time which were neither turned in during the amnesty through 1935 nor confiscated through the end of the unconstitutional ban on Americans owning gold in 1975) that gold would today sell for about $20.65 million. In other words, over 99.5% of the value of the dollar has been deliberately destroyed since 1932 by the evil and terrible ugly demon worshippers who infest the district of corruption (DC).
You know why they have deliberately impoverished American families? Because the American family stands between the bureau rats and politicians in DC and the children of those families. And all the bureau rats and all the politicians in DC want to rape, enslave, and murder the children of all Americans. So, while you are busy finding ways for Americans to take ownership of tyranny, the tyrants are just really enthusiastic about destroying you and your family.
You might want to look into how to get "self directed" 401 k and pension plans. You can actually have physical possession of gold and silver you buy with self directed funds, and you really cannot expect to keep any of the value in a bank account or pension fund account. They have been destroying the value of the money for a long time. You may think that Wall Street keeps setting new all time highs for stocks, but in terms of the real spending power of the dollar as measured by gold, the stock market today is lower than it was in 1929. But you prolly don' wanna hear that. It would be easier for you to dismiss me as some sort of bad person who wants to "rip it all down" because I bothered to show up after the great financial crisis at some public gatherings of people who were unhappy with how the system was rigged. And, you know, we must be the crazy ones, huh?
You have a dandy way with words Jim. I like the way you think!
is it ... a Yankee doodle dandy? asking for revolutionary musicians
As I said, I like the way you think Jim. Could very well have been
what was tickling my subconscious in the moment.
I marched in DC in a few anti-war protests during the aughts and what I noticed that was very different from those Saturday marches and the OW protests were the encampments. Who can camp out for weeks? (And I’ve tent camped/ backpacked in the woods a gazillion times for a vacation). The people I saw at the OW protests in my town looked like they had no cares in the world and it was a big long party. So, mea culpa for making generalizations for all, but I still think it was a bad look.
I followed events when Occupy was happening. I am sure different instances had different characters, but there were some where a lot of really gross stuff was going on at a couple of them. Or so it was reported, at least. So yeah, there were definitely some bad looks at some of the Occupy events.
One of the really interesting films that came out of the financial crisis was "Margin Call" which ends up with the finance guy from Europe eating a mighty fine meal in the company executives' dining room. Every character in the film has a huge salary and nice place to live. A much more interesting film was "The Big Short" which shows a whole lot of houses, restaurants, fancy office buildings, private jets, but does take about ten seconds of screen time to show a homeless encampment. There are thousands of homeless encampments in America and there are millions of Americans who lost their homes 2007 to 2010, but that's probably not who you think were having to "camp out for weeks." It's nice having a home.
I've had homes. I've slept in cars. I've slept in tents. Don't currently have a home, a car, or a tent. The horrors of the system that you support with your taxes persist. So do I.
Probably you don't see the homeless because you pay for local authorities to push them out of town or further into the forests. They are certainly likelier to hide from you than from people who seek them out and help them. But, if you go looking, you can find them. Maybe while you and your friends are having a really nice meal at Thanksgiving day after tomorrow you can think about whether you have a blanket or a pair of gloves or something you might find not being used and go looking one of these days. You know, to uphold conservative values, Christian giving, and thoughtfulness toward those who had more but now have much, much less. Because monetary inflation and the "you'll have no privacy, own nothing, and be happy" crowd are really very cruel. And you? You don't have to choose to be cruel.
Of course, you don't have to choose to be a part of a system that hurts your neighbours, either, but here we are.
With You all the way - except on the Kirk psyop. LOL! I watched the "spurting blood," saw it hit His white sleeve and His arm - and then vanish! (ai/CGI created.) And They blurred out His mouth... Was He grinning with duping delight?
Anyway, I hope to see Many not creating controversy by refusing to be subject to the system. Rather I hope We conditionally accept the offer to be subject... "I will be happy to [do that, give You that, get one of those, etc.] IF You prove I am in Your jurisdiction."
Any who have withdrawn consent from that psychopathic legal/governmafia mess are sovereign, and there is no proof of being in anyOne's jurisdiction.
On the Kirk thing, my point is not dependent upon what did or did not happen. Millions believed it did happen, and they were openly celebrating like gleeful little ghouls.
Were They? Or was that media production… I ponder. LOL! But yes, You’re right, the Kirk specifics are not the issue.
I saw people I know personally doing it. Not everything is a conspiracy. Reality also exists 😂
Fair enough. I have seen no One displaying that behavior, but maybe I don't get out enough.
Still and all, I would not put it past Them to write it into Their script and perform it on TV. Plenty of other things They have done that with.
Been a while but there was some "national news" event and I knew someOne from the area and They said it never happened... Wish My old brain could remember the details...
I do not doubt that quite a few things are fabricated. I am sure of it. However, it is essential that we continue to use our senses, rather than simply assuming that absolutely everything that ever happens is a psyop.
Again, I ponder. I said nothing about assumptions. LOL!
One minor nitpicking note: the poll you reference in the introduction targets "likely voters" (LV). Many political polls do: if you say you're not going to vote, they would ask no more question.
There are good reasons to believe many anarchist ideas would find more support among likely non-voters; unfortunately, this category is almost never tabbed separately. You can of course infer some data from the differences between polls targeting LV and registered voters (RV), but not much.
Yeah—Rasmussen, like other polling outfits, needs to start specifying a libertarian category.
Either way, we
A) keep convincing as many as we can, while
B) not waiting for those numbers to grow before we start building.
First....you are not a bad person. I did not want to pray or forgive anyone after Charlie was assassinated either. I want names and some justice.
Second, if they ever come to my door for my guns, I don't believe I could comply. But I might just not answer the door rather than firing the first shot of revolution. 🤷♀️
Yeah—door-to-door gun confiscating would likely do it.
And the thing is, these things tend to snowball—a few incidents would inspire others.
But I think the PtB are too smart for that. They will likely just squeeze ammo and gunpowder production rather than gun ownership.
Violence at this moment, along with population movements, will be the pretext to cyber walls and digital checkpoints as Big Brother Watch has warned in Britain. But its the same across multiple countries.
Right. They're waiting for an excuse. Violence is what they know. Peace—that, they don't know how to deal with. But peace does not have to be acquiescent or lazy. Peace can get busy!
I admit that I've been paralyzed by pure depression for awhile because every direction is a complete brick wall, with totally psychologically stunted crazy little demonic amoeba ppl consuming each other violently in a petri dish and who can't figure anything out. Because they don't physically contain brains. Or souls. They just spew vomit consume and eat, like satanic nonsense.
Would you permit me to help?
Hit me.
Cool. Let's talk about it and bat a few ideas around. I will start.
I have discovered that the most critical first step is to stop concerning oneself with what other people think and do and say and believe.
I know that stupid "democracy" forces us to care, because what other people believe gets forced upon us by their votes. But we aren't going to change that anytime soon, so thinking about it all the time just makes us crazy and angry and afraid of what they'll do next. And fear is a big source of depression.
Here are a few realities that we must come to grips with. I did during covid, and while it made me unhappy at first, now that it has settled in, it has not only made me happier, but stronger and better.
The first of these was to recognize that a certain percentage of humans are always going to have terrible ideas. They are going to believe the worst crap. They are going to be dangerous. They are going to be a threat in any situation.
That may seem like blackpill, but it's just the fact. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we stop believing that "if only we try a little harder, we can convince them." That will never happen. The sooner we accept that it will never happen, the happier we are.
Instead, we focus on ourselves. We make ourselves the hero of the story. Make yourself the main character. Don't worry about humanity as a whole. Be civil and polite and make connections with other people—and especially other heroes—but don't worry about "people." People as a whole are a mess, and that is never going to change. No matter how hard we fret about it.
If we do any preaching or concern ourselves in any way with reaching out to others, it is never to the "Mass" but only to "The Remnant," as Nock named them. (https://mises.org/mises-daily/isaiahs-job) We focus on OUR people.
And EVEN THERE, we recognize that no two people are going to agree. So we don't let ourselves get bent out of shape that even our fellows have shades of difference. So long as we agree on the basics (do not trespass the person, property, or liberty of another), our other differences are just interesting topics for conversation.
Are you with me so far?
I have also written about this in the context of the DN:
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/politics-misery-pursuit-happiness
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/individualism-productivity-irreplaceable-spark
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/stop-caring-what-other-people-think
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/stop-caring-what-others-think-about
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/trust-individuals-do-not-trust-mankind
I love all of that. I was actually late waking up about covid, so I would have been one of those enemies in the mass of society. And agreement isn't even the axiom of cooperation.
With love,
I first read this in 2020 when pondering why people weren't fighting back and disobeying the totalitarian mandates. Written during the several month buildup of the plandemic, after Event 201, a few weeks before CNN puffed up Fauci in a piece about experimental mRNA vaccines, around the same time the first whispers of a bad flu in China were shared in media. The psychological "priming" period:
Would You Stand Up to an Authoritarian Regime or Conform? Here's The Science
ScienceAlert, October 11, 2019
https://www.sciencealert.com/would-you-stand-up-to-an-authoritarian-regime-or-conform-here-s-the-science
"They argued that human behaviour is governed by two complementary, and very different, "logics".
According to the logic of consequence, we choose our actions like a good economist: weighing up the costs and benefits of the alternative options in the light of our personal objectives. This is basically how we get what we want.
But there is also a second logic, the logic of appropriateness. According to this, outcomes, good or bad, are often of secondary importance – we often choose what to do by asking "What is a person like me supposed to do in a situation like this"?
...
Authoritarian regimes
Both logics are required to create and maintain an authoritarian regime. To ensure that we make the "right" personal choices, an oppressive state's main tools are carrots and sticks – rewarding conformity and punishing even a hint of rebellion.
...
The authoritarian state is therefore concerned above all with preserving ideology – defining the "right" way to think and behave – so that we can unquestioningly conform to it.
This can certainly help explain the horrors of Nazi Germany – showing it's not primarily a matter of individual evil. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt famously argued, the atrocities of the Holocaust were made possible by normal people, manipulated into conforming to a horribly abnormal set of behavioural norms.
...
Would you rebel?
So how would you or I fair in Gilead? We can be fairly confident that most of us would conform (with more or less discomfort), finding it difficult to shake the feeling that the way things are done is the right and appropriate way.
...
So it may be that those who have the most to lose and/or are keen to climb the social ladder are particularly likely to conform. And, of course, if other members of your social circle are conforming, you may think it's the "appropriate" thing to do.
Few will fight Gilead after carefully weighing up the consequences – after all, the most likely outcome is failure and obliteration. What drives forward fights against an oppressive society is a rival vision – a vision of equality, liberty and justice, and a sense that these should be defended, whatever the consequences."
FF - After publishing that long piece one might think the author, Nick Chater, would've seen the totalitarianism descending across the world and sounded the alarm. Surely he'd have been one of the few on the front line writing about the desirability and virtue of freedom, his vision of equality, liberty and justice.
But, nigh. Instead he was rationalizing and justifying the imposition of totalitarianism, describing opposition to mandates as "friction" that would go away over time. And here is his writing that followed about applying the same type of behavioural modification to impose Climate totalitarianism, that will also need to overcome "friction":
https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Nick-Chater-Behavioural-Principles-for-Building-Back-Better.pdf
While Chater does a decent job explaining the types who would rebel, oppose totalitarianism in basic digestible language I question the timing and placement of his earlier story and what else his public mind "priming" has been intended to achieve. He speaks partial truths, the studies he references contain more useful information about how to resist totalitarianism and replace it with a better vision for governance. But not the whole truth. And what is missing is probably more important that what is contained.
What do you think is missing?
I certainly liked this part:
"What drives forward fights against an oppressive society is a rival vision – a vision of equality, liberty and justice, and a sense that these should be defended, whatever the consequences."
I Absolutely believe that to be true. Is why I saved and have shared that link.
I view the writer skeptically. Both the timing of the piece, October, 2019, and his subsequent writings, I think he writes for a purpose that does not share the vision he writes in those words. Or maybe he does? In a sort of "Freedom is Slavery" Newspeak way. And so while what he writes contains truths, eternal truth like part you and I like, I believe it omits other truths, by design or ignorance.
Context is everything. And given that Event 201 occurred exactly one week after Chater's article, a "first infection" a few weeks after that, followed by CNN pushing Fauci's mRNA experimental biotech in an article just a few weeks later, Plandemic is the only possibility that makes sense to me.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-01/coronavirus-outbreak-researchers-simulated-severe-pandemic/11906562
https://archive.ph/K3gZo
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/29/health/universal-flu-vaccine/index.html
And in that Plandemic narrative that was being constructed, the public mind being psychologically primed for, Chater being a mind "scientist," the narrative was to cast Trump as the Totalitarian. His article, without mentioning it, implies that Trump was the totalitarian to be wary of. And the earliest narrative of the plandemic was that Trump was totalitarian to resist, not trust with power. From the earliest "xenophobe" accusations against Trump and portrayal of him as aspiring dictator(sorry, not sorry for link wall, but good stuff for context most have forgotten):
https://x.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1223414098614018057
https://web.archive.org/web/20200313184710/https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-the-coronavirus-pandemic-fuels-trumps-autocratic-instincts
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/trump-coronavirus-response-authoritarian.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20200218195927/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/trump-response-coronavirus/606610/
https://web.archive.org/web/20200307135740/https://www.gq.com/story/trump-authoritarian-coronavirus
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/04/coronavirus-quaratine-travel-110750
https://archive.ph/EOx7p
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2020/03/17/on-coronavirus-beware-the-totalitarian-temptation/
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-coronavirus-outbreak-a-civil-liberties-perspective
https://www.aclufl.org/news/can-we-trust-government-respond-coronavirus-fair-and-effective-manner/
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-us-response-coronavirus
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/29/810713730/democratic-candidates-step-up-criticism-of-trumps-handling-of-coronavirus
The link wall is sort of a transitional story, from declarations that Trump was the totalitarian who was inflating fear of infections disease to gain power, impose his agenda to assertions that Trump *not* being more "aggressive" (totalitarian) in health mandates was totalitarian, the inversion of meanings (Newspeak) in real time.
I think Chater's piece, while containing truth also was part of a larger narrative that was being constructed when he wrote it. Trump's travel ban WAS unprecedented, authoritarian, disconnected from real medical, biological science; it was the original sin of the plandemic. Unwitting ignorance is what I chalk that up to, Trump's lack of intellectual curiosity and vigor, pure instinctual leadership being the progenitor of his response. That, followed by his Pottinger/Fauci/Birx/Pence-inspired national lockdown gave credibility to the totalitarian narrative. Only the inversion of what constituted being totalitarian, and the imposition of harsh lockdowns, mask mandates, 'vaccine' mandates, etc that his erstwhile totalitarian accusers adopted as their own totalitarianism makes him seem like the pro-freedom guy, "I didn't mandate anything."
I shared a breakdown of an old popular meme as an example of psychological priming a few years ago. The meme was debunked by actual experts. But the message of it resounded with those who wanted to believe fiction over fact who continued to share it because they found fiction aspirational. No doubt what they found aspirational years before also ensured their beliefs and actions during the plandemic were similarly disconnected from reality:
https://freedomfox.substack.com/p/foxes-know-wolves
I have little doubt that it was planned.
And I am now fully aware that there is a plurality or majority of any population who will be a threat, rather than allies, in any exigent circumstances.
And I know that a vision of freedom is the best way to proceed.
We take this knowledge and we act accordingly.
You make a plausible case. However, I got this opinion from an AI source: “[R]ight-wing extremist groups currently show more visible revolutionary tendencies linked to insurrection. The left also experiences unrest but is less associated with organized revolutionary violence at this time.” That opinion was supported by examples since 2001, such as the attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The opinion may be wrong. One AI source admitted that other AI sources tend to have a left-wing bias. Besides, members of the Heritage Foundation apparently favor a “second American Revolution,” which they seem to think will be bloodless if the left allows it to be. That may have figured into AI's opinion. Perhaps a distinction should be drawn between MAGA conservatives (aka national conservatives or populist nationalists) and Freedom Conservatives (who are more like classical liberals).
The recent claim—totally absurd—that there is more right-wing than left-wing violence was bolstered significantly by a ridiculous, heavily flawed study by Cato. Now, it's like that stupid "99% of scientists agree on climate change" trope. It's garbage, but everyone just says it as a matter of fact.
I will NEVER forgive Cato for this.
I was previously unaware of the CATO Institute's report on political violence, and I found its results surprising, as I had the impression that political violence is more common on the left. Since CATO seemed to be somewhat right-leaning, I would have expected the report to confirm my impression. According to two AI sources I checked, the CATO Institute is the foremost libertarian think tank in the world. According to Media Bias/Fact Check, CATO has a right-center bias but is rated “high” on factual reporting. Numerous articles are available online that either criticize or support CATO's findings. Predictably, criticism comes predominantly from the right and support comes from the left. I decline to spend my time reading all the reports and trying to evaluate them. I prefer to leave that up to some trusted source, such as Reason magazine. According to various media ratings, Reason is said to lean slightly right, and according to two AI sources, Reason is widely considered to be the foremost libertarian magazine in the world. Reason produced an article on the CATO report. (See “Assessing the Extent of Political Violence in America” by Ilya Somin dated 9/11/25, which you can find online.) According to the article, the author of the CATO report, Alex Nowrasteh (who is primarily known as an expert on, and supporter of, school choice), “finds the overall incidence of such violence is much lower than many assume. The 9/11 attacks dominate the stats, accounting for 83% of total deaths. Setting that aside, right-wing violence is significantly more prevalent than the left-wing variety.”
The CATO report's summary of the data includes:
"Terrorists inspired by Islamist ideology are responsible for 87 percent of those murdered in attacks on US soil since 1975…. Right-wingers are the second most common motivating ideology, accounting for...11 percent of the total. The definition here of right-wing terrorists includes those motivated by white supremacy, anti-abortion beliefs, involuntary celibacy (incels), and other right-wing ideologies.
"Left-wing terrorists murdered...about 2 percent of the total. Left-wing terrorists include those motivated by black nationalism, anti-police sentiment, communism, socialism, animal rights, environmentalism, anti-white ideologies, and other left-wing ideologies. Those murders that are politically motivated by unknown or other ideologies are a vanishingly small percentage, which is unsurprising because terrorists typically want attention for their causes."
CATO are not right-wing. CATO are beltway libertarians who like going to all the right cocktail parties.
Incels are a "right-wing" ideology? WHY?
How are they defining right-wing? I define right as being conservatives and libertarians, with anarchists being furthest to the right. (The unit of measure being human freedom in inverse proportion to size of government.) Do they define right-wing like all the other people addled by and suckling at the teat of a political spectrum created by panicky Marxists? With fascism at the far right? (A spectrum with no unit of measure whatsoever.) The fact that they included "incels" tells us a lot about what they wanted to accomplish with this "study."
Also, why start at 1975? That is almost exactly the moment when the insane paroxysm of leftist violence ebbed. In 1969, there was a bombing every week. In the years between 1960 and 1975, there was so much left-wing violence that whatever they are calling "right-wing" today would have to continue for another 100 years to match it. And they conveniently left that out.
And they left out everything before that too—all the bombings and assassinations and mayhem from the late 19th century on up. Almost all of which was done by Reds of one flavor or another.
This study was designed to give everyone a talking point, and from a "reputable," "right-wing" source.
I have studied this topic for years. CATO is lying. Not wrong—lying.
I'm glad you're not angry with me.
I'm unqualified to argue with you about the issue because, unlike you, I haven't studied it. Prior to checking with an AI source, I had the impression that most political violence came from the left. However, my opinion was based entirely on anecdotal evidence. Studies stating my opinion is mistaken came as a surprise to me. Still, I'm inclined to change my mind when confronted with what appears to be scientifically respectable evidence. Now I don't know what to believe. There's evidence on each side of the issue.
The AIs I used were Copilot Search (mainly) and Gemini (which I understand is Google's). According to each AI, several studies (not just Cato's) showed right-wing violence exceeded left-wing violence by a wide margin. However, I find it plausible that studies about the issue are biased or are misreported for two reasons. First, academia is dominated by progressives. Second, one AI I asked about AI bias admitted that other AI sources are somewhat left-leaning.
You seem to be right about incels. They may be commonly thought to be right leaning because they're often anti-feminist. However, one AI said that contrary to common stereotypes, a study shows the group to lean slightly left of center, with about 39% leaning right and 45% leaning left. In the Cato study the stereotype may have been mistakenly accepted. However, that study classified many more groups as left leaning. Besides, according to information I got online, the Cato study began with 1975 because it's the first year for which there are records of such violence.
I don't regard leftism as the opposite of libertarianism for three reasons. First, the opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism, whose extremes are anarchism and totalitarianism, respectively. Second, there are many self-identified left libertarians. Third, as Hyrum and Verlan Lewis argue in “The Myth of Left and Right,” those terms have no consistent definitions but have different meanings in different contexts. I find it more useful to replace “left” with “collectivist” and “right” with individualist” because “collectivist” and “individualist” have more clear and specific meanings, and they don't change meaning in different contexts. As an individualist libertarian, I favor anarcho-capitalism. However, there are collectivist libertarians. Anarcho-communists are an example. An entirely consensual commune may be inefficient, but it's not unlibertarian.
I don't share your opinion of the Cato Institute. It's generally recognized as the most influential libertarian think tank. I've more often seen its findings cited in news sources in support of libertarian policies than the findings of all other libertarian organizations combined. The Foundation for Economic Education and the Competitive Enterprise Institute seem to come in a distant second and third. How often do you see them cited in news sources?
I've been reading Reason magazine since about 1980. During the 1980s, I subscribed to several libertarian magazines. All but Reason went out of business. Besides Reason, the only one whose name I can remember is Libertarian Review. As I recall, Reason had the reputation of being the most right-leaning. Currently, Reason has by far the largest circulation. Though no accurate figures are available for other libertarian publications, I suspect Reason outsells all the rest combined.
I wonder whether we see things differently because of our different political backgrounds. Unlike you, I was never a conservative. Nor was I ever any sort of “leftist.” I had no conscious political ideology until I was 18. From that age until I was 33, I called myself a liberal, but I wasn't a “left liberal.” I was a liberal in the original sense of the word, a classical liberal. I became a relatively consistent individualist libertarian in 1972 as the result of a process of reasoning, but I didn't have a name for my political philosophy until 1976. Except for a brief period when I registered Republican to vote for Ron Paul, I've been registered only as nonpartisan and as Libertarian.
I didn't mean to click on "like." I was trying to click on "expand full comment." I wonder whether this happens often. I'll never intentionally "like" my own comments.
The above comment is in reference to a comment of my own that I made above, not in reference to any of your comments. However, my reply did not appear in the right place.
Neither do I. But I probably do it accidentally once in a while. No big deal!
"I wonder whether we see things differently because of our different political backgrounds."
—Possibly. But it would be more my anti-leftism than my conservatism. I became aware of the wickedness of leftism far earlier. Once I came to understand that leftism fails every time it is fully applied, and produces nothing but oppression and mountains of corpses, that was that. I was opposed to leftism long before the stretch began during which I could be called a "conservative."
"How often do you see them cited in news sources?
—Why would I care what gets cited in news sources, when the vast majority of news sources are run by lefties who engage in even more taqqiya than the most radical Islamist terrorist?
"more useful to replace “left” with “collectivist” and “right” with individualist”
—NOW we're getting towards a stable definition of a real political spectrum. So why do we allow the left to define the right as "everything bad"?
"An entirely consensual commune may be inefficient, but it's not unlibertarian."
—Correct. These exist, but they are incredibly rare. The vast majority of leftists don't want to create worker-owned factories—they want to seize factories created by others.
"according to information I got online, the Cato study began with 1975 because it's the first year for which there are records of such violence."
—The left, here and in Europe and Asia, engaged in unbelievable amounts of bombings, building takeovers, hostage taking, assassinations, riots, murders, assaults, arson, etc, for the better part of two decades, and it is all incredibly well documented. It is complete nonsense that 1975 is the first year for such records. This would make CATO the laziest think tank in the world.
Except it's worse than that. CATO is in on it. They did this study because it creates the narrative.
And "Oh look, it's coming from the most influential libertarian think tank. Not lefties, but from their own people. That makes it more credible."
Except CATO aren't our people. They're operatives. And this is the proof. The record of left-wing violence is so voluminous that a child could find it. It's not that CATO couldn't—it's that they didn't want to.
" In the Cato study the stereotype may have been mistakenly accepted."
—Make that INTENTIONALLY accepted. CATO is not to be trusted.
"They may be commonly thought to be right leaning because they're often anti-feminist"
—Even this is a problem. The modern definition of "right-wing" seems to be "everything bad." Racism. Sexism. Evil corporations. Bad cops. It's incoherent. But everyone just buys it, because it's been burrowed into our thinking since the early 1920s at least.
Somin continues, "'Right' and 'left' are somewhat arbitrary and incoherent categories. Thus, people can argue about some of Alex's coding choices here...Nonetheless, the coding here mostly tracks the way these terms are generally used in current US political discourse.” Also: “Alex's data does not include death threats, which are surely far more common than actual murders or attempts...I am not aware of any good data on the relative prevalence of death threats by ideology...But over twenty years of libertarian commentary on law and public policy issues...every single one of the threats I have gotten was from right-wingers...”
I thought other scientifically respectable research studies might show that the conclusions of the CATO study were mistaken, but an AI source said this: “Multiple studies show that historically and in recent years, right-wing political violence has been more frequent, more lethal, and more sustained than left-wing violence...” Another query got this response: “According to multiple recent analyses, right-wing extremist groups have caused the majority of politically motivated fatalities—accounting for roughly 75% to 80% of domestic terrorism deaths since 2001.” “Domestic terrorism” is defined as “unlawful acts of violence or threats within a country, aimed at intimidating or coercing civilians or influencing government policy, carried out by individuals or groups from the same country.”
The CATO study didn't cover property damage, which I assumed had been caused mostly by left-wing groups. However, an AI source reports that “property damage is more frequently associated with left-wing extremist groups, but overall, right-wing extremists cause a greater share of political violence and property destruction in the United States.”
Given my lack of expertise on the subject, I'm not qualified to evaluate the studies. However, I'm inclined to accept expert opinion until I have good reason to do otherwise, which I currently lack.
Apparently, concerning subjects that involve values, such as ethics, politics, and economics, people tend to engage in wishful thinking. As Francis Bacon said, “What a man had rather were true he more readily believes.” When the facts conflict with their preferences, people tend to engage in rationalization, which Ayn Rand defined as “a process of not perceiving reality, but of attempting to make reality fit one's emotions.”
On Christmas morning when I was five years old, I observed some anomalies, such as that my Mom's handwriting on a card differed from Dad's but was the same as Santa's, there were no sleigh tracks or reindeer tracks in the snow in the yard or on the roof, etc. I debated with my parents about the existence of Santa Claus, and despite their best efforts, I won the debate. I wanted to believe that Santa was real. But I preferred an unpleasant truth to a pleasant falsehood. I haven't changed my mind since then.
If a man habitually accepts the side of an issue he wishes were true, by chance, he'll be right about half the time. If he bases his opinion on the empirical evidence and logical arguments of which he is aware, he'll sometimes err, but his chances of being right are significantly greater than even.
Perhaps the people at CATO and Reason are mistaken about the political violence issue, but they seem to be motivated by the desire to know the truth. I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive them.
You are right that confirmation bias is a bitch. But I began studying this issue 25 years ago. I am not wrong. This study was curated to achieve this result.
Reason and CATO are the worst libertarian think tanks. I was undoing Reason's garbage arguments (on open borders and same-sex marriage) using libertarian principles BEFORE I was even a libertarian. Tom Woods refers to them as "mediocrities." I really hate publicly badmouthing anyone else in the movement—but this study pushed me over the edge. I will NEVER forgive CATO, because they are part of the machine masquerading as a libertarian think tank. And Reason is suffering (as so many libertarians do) from the narcissism of small differences—desperate to distinguish themselves from conservatives even more than they are from the left. Despite the fact that leftism is the literal opposite of libertarianism!
And the more time they spend within the Beltway, the more eager they are to service the left and the machine.
I don't like Reason, but I can forgive them. CATO, No.
(And all this anger of mine is directed entirely at them, John, not at you or your comments.)
AI is reading what Google allows it to read, and drawing from that.
Beginning in 2015, Google began heavily curating its search results. Downgrading and eventually removing certain results, while punching up others. They are curating a narrative.
Reason #1: they have jobs so they can support themselves, their families, and all the folks here and around the world who are fed by the government for one reason or another.
Yep, that's a good one!
Well, the liberal conservatives may be wired against allowing themselves to be provoked into a civil war, but if the Left keeps pushing, at some point the balance scale will tip.
The Covid experiment was a big eye-opener. It gave the bad guys a list, who obeyed (and even turned in others) and who said, ‘hell no!’ So if the Left ever again get back in power, likely by rigging elections—they’re still doing it—then they will eventually get down to using that list to make their takeover complete.
By the way, in one of my books, 'Crossing Over,’ I write about what a second American Civil War would be like. You might want to check it out.
Good article!
Thank you 🙏🏻
The difficulty lies in knowing when to stick one's neck out. In order to do that, people need to feel like they have little or nothing to lose. But the trend has been to move things along so slowly that that point is never reached quickly enough. Each loss of freedom is accepted, and then even defended (even by conservatives) as the new status quo.
I expected my fellows to resist covid tyranny. A few did, but not to the degree I expected.
At my Walmart, I was the only one not wearing a mask. 200 people milling around like compliant zombies. Probably 30 percent knew that it was all bull$h1t, but they still complied, leaving me as the ONLY one actually standing up for anything.
That experience was instructive.
Have you seen the film "Casablanca"? There is a marvellous "arc of character" for Rick Blaine. Near the beginning when Ugati is being arrested Rick says, "I stick my neck out for no one." By the end of the film when he's shooting Major Strasser, he has worked out that he cannot be safe any longer running a saloon in "unoccupied" France. There is always a straw that breaks the camel's back. But, many of today's Americans couldn't tell you the difference between straw and hay.
It’s been 38 years since I saw it. Perhaps it’s time.
But yes, there can be a tipping point where action happens. But it is really hard to get there with conservatives.
It is definitely worth watching. Back when I was the owner of a mighty fine 840 square foot house there was a DVD of "Casablanca" in one of my book shelves. That dvd and the books are in storage in Ohio for reasons. I used to watch it every year, sometimes on the anniversary of its release, sometimes on the "Day of Deceit" the 7th day of the 12th month, because that's mentioned in the film. "It's December 1941 in Casablanca. What time is it in New York?" asks Rick Blaine and Sam says, "My watch broke."
Good points, and good on you for resisting. But, I think there is always a tipping point, the straw, the law that goes too far. And the resultant pushback. The process you describe (conservatives never fighting back, just retreating redrawing the line, that's true sometimes, but not always. There is always a minority, likely 33%, of people who will, at some point, fight back. Just like the American revolution. A third were loyalists to the Crown, a third refused to join either side, just went about their business as much as they could, and a third did fight back.
But there are certainly, as you know, people in other parts of the world, who either did not fight back, or were too tentative, and were crushed and enslaved. The Russians come to mind. So they had to endure 75 years of Totalitarian repression before they finally rid themselves of the soul-crushing commies.
For the sake of my mental health, I have to believe that Americans will never totally cave to tyranny. I think the enemy believes that as well, that's why they are trying to 'replace' Americans with malleable third world dregs.
Yes. And part of the purpose of importing outsiders is to get people who have no connection to the country, the land, or the people, who will thus have no problem being paid to act as footsoliders against us.
Thank you so much Christopher. Great article. Please have a Happy Thanksgiving.
Thank you—YOU TOO!
Well-argued!
And this piece bolsters my preference for a "minarchist" approach to government rather than an anarchist approach.
Happy Thanksgiving to all! 8<)
"Well-argued!"
—Thank you!
"And this piece bolsters my preference for a "minarchist" approach to government rather than an anarchist approach."
—🤣🤣🤣 You're going to have to explain that!
"Happy Thanksgiving to all! 8<)"
—And to you, and love to you and Susan.