Jeffrey Bale

@kevinnbass As if any sane person could trust Ardern to disseminate the "truth".

July 25, 2020 Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand: "We will continue to be your single source of truth. ... Unless you hear it from us it is not the truth." What do you think Western countries would be like if our governments became our "single source of truth"?

@VDHanson Exactly right.

Import poverty; romanticize illegal immigration; demonize the middle class; drive out private-sector capital; and exempt elites from the consequences of their own ideology—and you’re left with a state where democracy dies, along with everything else. victorhanson.com/is-california-…

@neutralground90 Some of us have been warning about these dangers for decades. Yet it is only relatively recently that several intelligence services have begun taking them seriously. The incredible thing is that the left is so naive about the right-wing, totalitarian, theocratic agenda of the MB.

Germany's intelligence chief just warned a closed Bundestag meeting. The Muslim Brotherhood is infiltrating German political institutions. Strategic. Patient. Non-violent. Building relationships, influencing legislation, embedding through civic organisations funded by German taxpayers. His most alarming finding: left-wing parties are the most vulnerable. The SPD. The Greens. The Left Party. "More open and susceptible" due to what he called "a poorly understood concept of tolerance." A German political scientist confirmed it in blunter terms. Left-wing allies "possess no argumentative resistance to the Brotherhood. They are discursively co-opted and subordinate themselves." The Brotherhood does not confront the left. It cultivates it. meforum.org/fwi/fwi-news/g…

I bear no ill will to people pretending to be someone they are not. I do bear ill will to people seeking to deploy state power to force me to join them in their pretense. The former is a mostly sad and injurious thing that some people have convinced themselves is their truest source of happiness in a way that I cannot prevent them from believing. The latter is an attack on my right to belief and disbelief that violates my personhood.

@TheDopaVash @CovfefeAnon The French and American revolutionary ideas had very different emphases, which in part accounts for the greater violence and authoritarianism of the former. The former was more collectivist and statist, whereas the latter was more individualistic and anti-statist in its doctrines

@JeffreyMBale @CovfefeAnon Ask yourself this question: The American Revolution is understood to be one of liberalism. Was the French revolution also?

The actual joke here is not that liberals lack a theory of mind for anyone on the right (they do) while the average person on the right has one for liberals (they do, it's mistaken) It's that lib lack a theory of mind *for themselves* Their views of themselves and why they believe what they believe are entirely incorrect - they view their beliefs as "rational" and "following the evidence" but their actual beliefs are more simply described by "attempts to match the beliefs of the hivemind" and the hivemind changes beliefs based on if those beliefs produce power The simplest example (and there are others) is everything around covid where it went from "it's racist to worry about a disease - hug a Chinese person" to "shut everything down" to "racism is the real public health emergency" all following purely from the logic of power If a liberal had a good theory of mind *for himself* he would see himself as so cynical that he couldn't function as a good liberal - just saying that this is how they form views is enough to disqualify anyone from taking their views seriously Them lacking a theory of mind for anyone on the right is just a natural consequence of this

I find feminists today really fascinating. They have long made this argument that "it's not all men, but it is always a man" But, conveniently, that doesn't apply to immigrants - especially when we know a HUGE PORTION of these "asylum seeks" and "refugees" are fighting age men from countries that hate women. Feminists use the analogy that, if you had a bowl of M&Ms and knew a few were poisoned, you wouldn't take the chance eating any. To them, this applies to men - most men might be fine, but you wouldn't chance finding out which ones are not. But, again, all of this self-preservation dies when it comes to immigration. All I can conclude is if these women acknowledged their cognitive dissonance, their brains would break. So, it's a lot easier to fight for the rights of invaders, and justify their violence and shittiness, rather than acknowledge that their ideology is broken and flawed. I've said it a million times - the FEMINIST position is one that is anti mass immigration. It is one that protects women from the hundreds of thousands of foreign males who do not respect women, and believe we are lesser than. It bothers me endlessly than these women are sowing the seeds of not only THEIR own destruction, but the destruction of the rest of us women as well. And they're too arrogant and militant to see that.

Posez-vous une seule question, et tout l'édifice s'effondre. Pourquoi des causes qui n'ont, en apparence, rien à voir entre elles finissent-elles toujours par dire exactement la même chose, avec les mêmes mots, contre les mêmes gens? Le droit des homosexuels n'a rien à voir avec le climat. Le climat n'a rien à voir avec la question raciale. La question raciale n'a rien à voir avec la théorie du genre. Quatre sujets distincts, quatre histoires, quatre publics, quatre champs d'expertise séparés. Et pourtant. Prenez le porte-parole le plus visible de chacun de ces combats. Mettez les quatre dans une pièce. Vous obtenez quatre personnes qui votent pareil, qui méprisent les mêmes gens, qui emploient le même lexique (systémique, déconstruire, privilège, inclusif), et qui ne se contredisent jamais. Jamais. Ce n'est pas une coïncidence. C'est une loi. Elle fonctionne en trois temps, et chacun se vérifie avec des chiffres. Premier temps. Dans n'importe quel groupe, ce n'est jamais la majorité qui parle. C'est la frange la plus militante. La masse vit sa vie. Le petit noyau le plus idéologisé s'empare du micro, parce que lui seul a le temps, l'argent et le fanatisme de le tenir. Ce n'est pas une intuition. L'étude Hidden Tribes (8 000 Américains interrogés) chiffre cette frange, les Progressive Activists, à 8% de la population. Un Américain sur douze. En face, une majorité épuisée de deux tiers qui n'a jamais demandé le micro et qui n'a jamais voté pour le porte-parole. Robert Conquest avait formulé la mécanique dès les années 1960 : toute organisation qui n'est pas explicitement de droite finit, avec le temps, par devenir de gauche. Pas par complot. Par sélection naturelle. Le fanatique reste quand le modéré rentre chez lui. Deuxième temps. Cette frange ne ressemble en rien à ceux qu'elle prétend représenter, et elle est plus radicale qu'eux. Voici le chiffre qui devrait clore le débat. Le bloc militant le plus à gauche d'Amérique, celui qui parle au nom des minorités à longueur de journée, est composé à 67% de Blancs. Sept pour cent de Noirs (Pew, juin 2026). Le groupe le plus diplômé, le plus aisé, le plus connecté du pays. Ceux qui hurlent le plus fort au nom des opprimés sont, statistiquement, les plus privilégiés du tableau. Et ils sont plus extrêmes que les concernés eux-mêmes. 71% des Blancs progressistes veulent couper le budget de la police. Les Noirs américains, eux, sont partagés (53% pour, 44% contre), et seulement 28% ont soutenu le slogan "defund the police". Les Hispaniques y étaient majoritairement opposés (57%). Le porte-parole autoproclamé était donc plus radical que la communauté au nom de laquelle il prétendait parler. Une étude (ANES) pousse jusqu'au vertige : les Blancs progressistes sont le seul groupe du pays à mieux noter les autres races que la leur. Traduction. Un diplômé aisé a décidé de parler au nom de l'opprimé. Et l'opprimé n'est pas d'accord. Et ces franges sortent toutes du même moule. Le même appareil universitaire (Foucault, Derrida, l'École de Francfort, dont j'ai raconté la généalogie). Le même écosystème de fondations, qui financent ouvertement, sur catalogue public, l'associatif militant de chaque cause. Le même séminaire, le même lexique, les mêmes formations. On ne produit pas vingt idéologies. On produit vingt antennes d'un seul émetteur. Troisième temps. Une fois installée, la frange parle au nom de tous et écrase ceux qui, à l'intérieur du groupe, refusent de suivre. L'homosexuel discret qui ne se reconnaît pas dans le mégaphone. Le Noir conservateur. La femme qui refuse qu'on efface le mot femme. Tous traités en traîtres. Parce que le premier ennemi du militant n'est jamais l'adversaire d'en face. C'est le modéré de son propre camp. Le modéré est le danger absolu : il prouve, par sa seule existence, que le mégaphone ment quand il dit parler au nom de tous. Résultat. Vous croyez voir une mosaïque de combats pour les droits. Vous voyez en réalité un seul logiciel, installé sur des machines différentes. La cause n'est jamais la cause. La cause est le costume. Et celui qui porte le costume sert toujours le même propriétaire : l'idée que tout, absolument tout (la famille, la nation, le mérite, la norme, la frontière, la vérité elle-même) est une structure d'oppression à abattre. C'est la matrice marxiste, qui a simplement quitté l'usine pour l'identité. La lutte des classes ne fonctionnait plus (les ouvriers s'embourgeoisaient), alors on a multiplié les classes : une par minorité, une par cause, à l'infini. Un prolétariat de rechange, renouvelable indéfiniment. Et voici le test qui ne trompe jamais, le seul qui compte. Une cause sincère accepte la contradiction en son sein. Un costume idéologique, non. Le jour où vous verrez le porte-parole d'une de ces causes défendre publiquement un dissident de son propre camp, contre son propre camp, vous saurez que c'était une vraie cause. Vous attendrez longtemps. La bonne nouvelle, c'est que ce qui tient par un seul fil tombe par un seul fil. Une frange de 8% ne gouverne que tant que les 92% se taisent. Le jour où la majorité silencieuse de chaque groupe reprend son micro, l'émetteur se retrouve sans antennes. Il n'émet plus que dans le vide. Ce micro, personne ne vous interdit de le reprendre. Au travail.

@brivael Good analysis.

@WesternLensman This woman is a disgrace to the historical profession.

‘Historian’ Heather Cox Richardson tells Jim Acosta: “It's not really a stretch to say that the same impulse that created the UFC fight on the white House lawn... ...is the impulse that really pushed lynching in the late 19th century." Acosta nods right along with this batsh*t insanity. Because of course he does.

@Glenn_Diesen They're talking tough, but they're not really ready to fight.

The return of German war enthusiasm should probably be greeted with more scepticism in Europe

Bit odd that that investigating child abuse by grooming gangs was resisted for years but then now all of a sudden, child safety is the number one priority for Keir Starmer. Just watch this government build the machinery to verify every adult online at speed. And once the infrastructure exists, the uses for it will go far beyond social media age checks

@HansMahncke Exactly right. With destructive and tragic consequences.

This is spot on. Zuckerberg did not just help Biden become president in the conventional way by pouring money into his campaign. He did something far worse, with effects that may have permanently changed American elections. He funneled half a billion dollars into election offices to expand mail in voting and ballot drop boxes, concentrating that money overwhelmingly in Democratic strongholds.

@JonHaidt Look more carefully, Jonathan. The real purpose of this authoritarian measure is to force adults to provide complete information before they are allowed to use social media sites. "Protecting the children" is simply a pretext for exerting more social control and censorship.

@Polymarket Yikes!

JUST IN: UK Government clarifies adults will still be able to use social media by verifying their identities with digital IDs, facial recognition, passports and credit cards.

@LeonChaland Nonsense. But they definitely do not want a Europe dominated by the feckless, corrupt, and authoritarian EU.

The far right wants Europe fully dominated by the US, China and russia. Their plan is simple: dismantle the only thing that allows us to rival them — the European Union. These traitors are funded and controlled by those who seek to destroy us. They must never come to power.

@NotTheirScript One of the most important lessons of history is that well-organized, highly vocal, extremist minorities are usually able to exert much greater influence than disorganized and often apathetic majorities.

If you don’t think radical ideology can threaten this country, you weren’t watching the transgender movement. In barely a decade we went from biology being a settled fact to being told gender identity overrides it, that kids can decide their own sex, and that anyone who hesitated was a bigot. It started as a fringe academic idea. Then it was in the schools, the hospitals, the boardrooms, and the government. It didn’t take a majority. It took a small, disciplined movement that knew which buttons to push, compassion, victimhood, the fear of being called cruel. And it worked. That’s the part to sit with. It was never about one issue. It’s proof that a determined movement can rewrite an entire society faster than anyone thinks possible. If it happened once, it can happen again. Pay attention….

@Panagiotou90St Correct.

Accelerating a multicultural experiment that isn’t working while restricting people’s ability to find out and talk about its failures is a further step towards tyranny. It is all about erecting a totalitarian surveillance state that will micromanage avoidable conflicts.

@CynicalPublius That pretty much sums it up, sadly.

The plan of Marxist leaders: 1. Ensure that schools do not properly teach economics. 2. Create envy in the minds of economically illiterate citizens by asserting that there is a limited pie of national wealth and some people have too much of that pie. 3. Appoint themselves as the arbiters of wealth distribution and rely on the envy of the economically illiterate masses to achieve power. 4. Use that power to ensure that everyone is equally poor, except them of course because they deserve disproportionate wealth because of all the "responsibility" they shoulder. 5. Build that party dacha on the Volga River and eat caviar. 6. Profit. _________________________ With respect to @elonmusk they are somewhere between steps #2 and #3.

The police in Madrid are acting out the unitary agenda of the global Gender Inquisition, which seeks to deploy state power to coerce the whole world into treating a falsehood as if it were the only truth. The movement is working tirelessly to obtain the power to arrest, imprison and/or destroy the livelihood of anyone who disputes state enforced dogmas and will do so wherever it succeeds. When US Democrats say "we can't throw trans people under the bus," what they mean is: "We must deploy state power to imprison anyone who stands in the way of our goal of chemically castrating and dismembering any confused child whom we have successfully brainwashed into believing they can change sex."

@the_culturist_ 100% true. If we still had sane people running our educational system on all levels, this would be a five-alarm fire that would lead to major reforms.

I don't think anybody really grasps how desperate this situation is. University professors are now saying they are unable to teach history because reading long books and passages is how a person learns history. College kids are incapable of reading more than a few pages. Some classes don't assign any reading at all now, only lectures. There is an assumption among the people managing this decline that reading is just a way of receiving information. It isn't. Proper reading is how we build the mental muscle to synthesize ideas and evaluate them. If the catastrophic decline in reading and literacy is not addressed now, we risk losing everything. Western civilization cannot survive the death of reading because it was built by people with the kind of cognitive depth that a culture of deep reading brings: Complex reasoning, extended internal dialogue, the capacity to hold opposing ideas in tension. Our systems and institutions are complex, and they require well ordered minds to maintain them. Reading forms minds, and the West was built by the richest minds in history.