Wednesday, February 09, 2022

Rip van Winkle in Reverse

Continuing our meditation on the tower of Babel, Kass writes that just as "awareness of the multiplicity of human ways" is a "precondition for the active search for the better or best way," so too is "opposition"

the key to the discovery of the distinction between error and truth, appearance and reality, convention and nature -- between that which appears to be and that which truly is.

Moreover, "Contesting a 'human truth' invites the quest for a truth beyond human making."

So at least we can all agree on the natural right to free speech. Whether left or right, there are certain principles that are settled for all time, and which all Americans will defend to the death! 

Rip van Winkle, said the voice in Bob's head.

I didn't pay much any attention in school, so I didn't remember know that the story was a satire on the vast and unintended politico-cultural changes that took place in America between the founding and the early 19th century. In short, if you had fallen asleep in 1788 and awakened in 1818, you would scarcely have recognized the place. 

Now, what if someone had fallen asleep in 1992 or so and awakened in 2022? 

I remember the first time I heard conspiratorial rumblings about the left's supposed plan to restrict and dismantle free speech, although I no longer remember the year. Must have been during the Obama administration, although it's possible it was in the latter days of Bush the Even Worse than His Father.

In any event, my first thought was literal incredulity: c'mon, man! Such fevered, paranoid characterizations of Democrats just play into their hands and make us look nuts. Say what you want about the left, but remember that the ACLU's defense of free speech is absolute, to the point of defending Nazis.

One of my wronger takes. That and defending Bush the Even Worse. And not being among the first wave to climb on board the Trump Train.  

In our new version of Rip van Winkle, the political movement would be in the opposite direction -- away from freedom and toward tyranny. In the original, "The very village was altered," and "idleness, except among the aged, was no longer tolerated." "Even the language was strange -- 'rights of citizens,'" elections, liberty, etc. 

beneath the surface Rip, like most Americans, knew that 'everything's changed.' In a few short decades American's had experienced a remarkable transformation in their society and culture, and, like Rip and his creator, many wondered what had happened and who they really were (Gordon Wood).

Likewise, in a few short decades we too have witnessed a transformation -- transmogrification is more like it -- in our society and culture. 

Someone who had fallen asleep a mere two decades ago wouldn't know what to make of cancel culture, homosexual marriage, tranny generals, mask mandates, open borders, the assault on election integrity, the utter corruption of journalism, state approved late night comedy, the diabolical union of Big Tech and Big Government... How did we end up on the wrong side of history?  

No one twenty years ago would have known what to make of the following email from Alex Berenson that just popped up in my in-box -- he sounds hysterical and paranoid, like some kind of leftist loon!

EXTREMELY URGENT: The Biden Administration says I'm a terrorist threat. 
That headline sounds like a joke. It’s not.
The White House has begun an extraordinary assault on free speech in America. It is no longer content merely to force social media companies to suppress dissenting views. It appears to be setting the stage to use federal police powers.

How else to read the “National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin” the Department of Homeland Security issued on Tuesday? Its first sentence:

SUMMARY OF THE TERRORISM THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES: The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories..

The government now says “misleading narratives” are the most dangerous contributor to terrorism against the United States.

These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence. 

A federal agency says that to “undermine public trust in government institutions” is now considered terrorism. Speech doesn’t even have to encourage rebellion or violence generally, much less against anyone specific. It just has to “potentially inspire” violence.

Potentially.

Later, the bulletin explains exactly what speech the government now considers a terrorist danger:

Widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19.

There’s that word misleading again. Who’s defining “misleading”? Misleading to whom? Misleading how?

I have no doubt whatsoever that I fit as a terrorist threat under these guidelines.

So does Joe Rogan. And Tucker Carlson. After all, we’ve “undermine[d] public trust in government institutions” about Covid and the mRNA shots (I try not to call them vaccines anymore).

This bulletin marks an extraordinary escalation of the war on speech and the First Amendment.

Now, imagine falling asleep today and waking up in twenty or thirty years. If current trends continue, you'll either wake up behind bars or dead. 

My apologies. We'll have to get back to Babel in the next post. 

25 comments:

John Venlet said...

The Biden administration says I'm a terrorist threat.

Welcome to the club. T-shirts are sold elsewhere.

On a more serious note, the most disturbing aspect of not being in a Rip Vanwinkle state over the past three decades is experiencing the rise in numbers of worshipers of the state, whom believe the state is saving them and humanity, when, in fact, the state is link by link forging the chains by which they will become mere fodder to feed the growing appetite for power and retention of said power.

I wear the terrorist threat tag lightly, and with pride. I desire for the government to fear the people.

Gagdad Bob said...

If you're not a terrorist threat, you're doing it wrong.

Nicolás said...

When one does not concede to the leftist all that he demands, he proclaims himself the victim of an institutional violence that is licit to repel with physical violence.

Nicolás said...

The political platforms of the left are gradually transformed into scaffolds.

Anonymous said...

Damned leftists!

"We all were here. We saw what happened. It was a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election from one administration to the next." -Mitch McConnel

"My attitude was: It was put-up or shut-up time. If there was evidence of fraud, I had no motive to suppress it. But my suspicion all the way along was that there was nothing there. It was all bullshit.” -Bill Barr

Cousin Dupree said...

Rip van Wokle

julie said...

I never knew that about R van W, either. Interesting.

I was just watching this video essay about the Trucker's Revolution in Canada, and it dawned on me that, no matter what I thought of the state of America in years past or how ridiculous and dangerous the government was becoming, never did I really believe that it would ever be necessary to fight for freedom here in North America. We had those battles, they were history, our kids would never have to face a new American revolution. How ridiculous!

And yet, here we are.

I envy old Rip; when he went to sleep, things were looking pretty grim, and when he woke, it was to a world of optimism and opportunity. How long will it be until America is in such a genuine state again? And should such a time come, will it even be America anymore?

Tangentially, Trump truly was apocalyptic; how many things did we once take for granted that have since been revealed to be utter bullshit (speaking of Bush the Even Worse than His Father)?

EbonyRaptor said...

I was born in 1954 - smack dab in the middle of the boomer generation. My parent's generation is often called our finest and to that I say they look to be so in comparison. I'm ashamed of my generation - we squandered our birthright, not only for ourselves, but for our children, grandchildren and progeny of generations not yet born. I have 4 grandchildren and my heart breaks to know that they will never know the America the Beautiful I grew up taking for granted. God forgive us.

Dougman said...

We shall overcome this onslaught on common sense and truth.
In our darkest hour will come the brightest light.
As it happened in the microcosm on earth, so too will it transpire in the cosmos.
What a glorious day we have to look forward to 😊

Anonymous said...

I find it very strange that most of you here feel strong concern about the future of America and that we agree on many things, but re the core cause of the concern we are see things radically different.

I agree that Biden is a terrible president, cancel culture is ridiculous and out of control, and also have concerns about attacks on freedom of expression. I also feel that the assault on electoral integrity is an existential threat to our democracy.

What I just have trouble fathoming is how we can be 100% on opposite ends of the cause of the threat to our democracy. I have looked with an open mind at claims to election fraud in the last election and have found nothing at all that would suggest that Trump got the 270 electoral votes that would have made him president. In fact when I search on the internet I can't find anywhere an accounting of how Trump got the 270 votes needed.

I see that the law was followed and that there were a large number of recounts, none of which exposed any widespread fraud and that even the questionable Arizona Cyber Ninjas recount found nothing. The law was also followed when the Trump camp filed over 70 lawsuits re the election - none of which found anything. Despite that, Trump tried to have Pence illegally overturn an election for which there is no fraud. He continues to constantly lie about election fraud for which there is no evidence. If he does run in 2024, there is no doubt in my mind that he will claim victory and fraud regardless of what happens. The only difference this time, is that he will have partisan people running the elections at the state level who will not have the integrity to stand up to him when he asks for more votes to be found.

Can anyone point me to a URL which shows how Trump legitimately won the election or there was widespread fraud? Although I agree with many of your other stated concerns, this of primary concern to me. I just can't understand how smart people can accept something as serious as believing that the last election fraudulently gave the election to the wrong person without any credible proof of this.

julie said...

I find it very strange that you want to subvert this thread to make it a discussion about the legitimacy of the last presidential election, but here we are.

Anonymous said...

You do have a point as I am more a less an unwelcome trespasser. It isn't my intent to subvert this thread. I share your very deep concerns about the direction of the country and want to understand on what basis you feel that last election was illegitimate. I think part of the problem re all of the political vitriol is a lack of civil discussion in between people with differing opinions. However, if I am unwelcome here and nobody wants to discuss this in a civil manner, I will back off.

John Venlet said...

In fact when I search on the internet I can't find anywhere an accounting of how Trump got the 270 votes needed.

Anonymous, for someone who is fairly articulate, and presents as intelligent, I find it difficult to accept that you wrote the above as an alleged serious question. Of course you were unable to find verification on the internet! I would recommend, if you desire to communicate with individuals, on their blog, you stick to the subject matter at hand. If not, maybe you could just continue searching the internet for evidence. Good day.

Anonymous said...

Hi John:

Thanks for your reply. It is actually a very serious question. I truly want to understand on what basis the smart people here are basing these beliefs. The internet contains all opinions. I really never have seen any credible evidence that Trump won the election. For such a claim to be made, someone must have an accounting of how Trump won the 270 votes he needed and where the specific fraud was.

Our constitution is only as good as adherence to it is. I see plenty of evidence that our laws were followed in the last election as all states both red and blue certified the results. Lawsuits were filed and lost in both blue and red states. Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence". Claiming that our democracy failed is quite an extraordinary claim. 270 votes were required to win. It seems to me that people making claims that Trump really got 270 votes should be able to point to at least a state-by-state accounting of such fraud.

Had there actually been fraud, and Trump rightly won, I would fully support exposing this egregious subversion of our democracy. What I don't get is why nobody will present some clear evidence with an accounting of this at the electoral vote/state level. It just doesn't pass the sniff test.

Good day to you also...

Cousin Dupree said...

A good start would be Mollie Hemingway's Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections.

Anonymous said...

Thanks. I have purchased the book. Not sure if your link had something embedded which gives you something from Amazon, but I used it just in case.

Maybe I have been misunderstanding the position of people here re illicit activities which tilted the election vs. an outright fraud of election vote counting and claiming Trump got the 270 votes. It seems this book addresses more of the illicit activities up to the election vs. outright fraud in counting votes. While I have never seen anything that indicates the latter, I am not educated into the types of claims this book appears to make. I will read it with an open mind.

John Venlet said...

Anonymous, speaking for myself, in regards to your search for fraud and what you state is your inability to locate said same, it should not be surprising that it neither can be found in the media, nor individual states' certifications. Your apparent trust in these sources is unfounded, and I think it would be beneficial for you to disabuse yourself of this trust. If you cannot see (understand) that all governments throughout the world, and individuals who aspire to governmental positions from the highest to lowest who covet that power, do not have "the peoples'" best interests at heart, especially in today's political climate, you will be unable to see the truth even if it is presented to you in an ironclad manner. It's good that you are willing to read Mollie's book, and though it may not provide the convincing proofs you claim to seek, perhaps it may create that nagging doubt which often leads to further enlightenment on the subject being pursued, at least if you are sincere in your statements here.

Cousin Dupree said...

If nothing else, it will provide you with insight into the mindset of conservatives who are fed up with the whole rotten system. The disgust goes far beyond mere electoral shenanigans.

Anonymous said...

Hi John:

I agree with you 100% regarding: "individuals who aspire to governmental positions from the highest to lowest who covet that power, do not have "the peoples'" best interests at heart". I don't think it is a left/right Republican/Democrat thing. For the most part, politicians have one primary interest which is themselves. This includes selling out to special interests so that they can perpetuate their political careers and/or getting a cushy lobbyist job themselves when it all ends.

This has been the norm for a long time. What I don't understand is why/how it has gotten so much worse recently.

Regarding trusting state certifications of elections. My feeling is that if someone is claiming fraud it incumbent on them to provide evidence of such fraud and that if there is such widespread fraud it shouldn't be that difficult to find. A secret can be kept easily for one person. A lot less easily for 2 people, and nearly impossible for a large number of people. If there was widespread fraud, it would have been found after 70 court cases of which many were presented to Trump appointees. Out of all of the people who believe in the fraud, someone should have been able to present proof. As I noted, it all just doesn't pass the sniff test.

In general, I don't believe in most if any conspiracies for similar reasons. To hide a conspiracy takes a rare degree of talent. You may find one person with this talent or maybe 2 or 3 even 3. The more people that need to be involved with a conspiracy such as this requires more people which will water down the skill level to the mean. You will never have a successful conspiracy that requires a large number of people to pull off.

I have been in the workforce for a long time. What I have found is that in any work environment, out of 100 people, there are going to be 1-2 superstars who excel. There are probably 8-10 people who are very good and maybe another 10 who are good. Maybe another 10-20 are adequate and maybe another 10-20 aren't very good, but they can get something done with enough oversight. The rest are pretty useless. A quote from someone I know which sums up my feelings (paraphrased) is that the difference in between a good organization and a poor one is the level of incompetence. (unquote) Competence is a rare commodity.

Given the large number of people it would take to falsify election results and the same curve of [in]competency. I find it beyond credibility that this could be pulled off without leaving any evidence. I have yet to see anyone provide anything that is remotely credible that Trump got the 270 electoral college votes and really won. In fact, I have never seen anyone even provide any evidence at all of any fraud.

I will read the book with an open mind, and I suspect I will be enlightened about things I wasn't aware of. However, when it comes to claims that Trump really won, I feel it is up to those making the extraordinary claims to provide proof or at least credible evidence vs. having others dig for it.

Cheers...






Van Harvey said...

Anonymous, it might be better to stop looking at the accusations made against them, and start with what they were eager to boasted in Time magazine, about having done:

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

That's a problem.

John Venlet said...

Anonymous, this will be my last response to your fraud inquiries. Please look at this, regarding Wisconsin.

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/monster-thread-from-liz-harrington/

Cousin Dupree said...

Whatever happened to the rudimentary skepticism that would prompt a normal person to question a government advancing the extremely self-interested claim that a shuffling moron with advanced senility truly received the most votes of any presidential candidate in history? Doesn't pass the smell test.

Drew P Wiener said...

I agree with Dupree. Elections should be decided on the best smells.

Anonymous said...

Hi Van:

I looked at that Time article. To be honest with you I didn't see anything in there that indicated fraud or illegality. There was a concerted effort to bolster mail in ballots, but I don't see anything in there which indicates fraud or encouragement of fraud. There also was coordination with Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, but I didn't see anything that indicated illegal activities either.

One thing that you do have to say about Trump is that he pretty much broadcasts what he is going to do and for the most part, follows through. He did make it clear long before the election that he would reject any results but him being deemed the winner which is what he did.

I haven't had time to read the book yet, but will do so. It may uncover some things I'm not aware of.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Hi John:

Thanks for that info. I found it to make a lot of claims and difficult to view screens but nothing evidential. There were claims that they had names and addresses, but didn't provide anything that could be looked at. I did look around on the Internet and found debunking of pretty much everything in there. There were legal challenges and recounts to the election in Wisconsin, all of which failed. Something else that this and all other of these fraud claims seem to make is that they point out unsubstantiated fraud and then automatically assume that the fraud was directed against Trump. The very few cases of fraud that have been substantiated were pretty much split in between Trump and Biden.

Here is what I found:

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-wisconsin-numbers/fact-check-claims-about-23000-wisconsin-voters-with-the-same-phone-number-and-4000-voters-registered-on-1-1-1918-missing-context-idUSL1N2RU1WC

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/14/facebook-posts/false-claim-100000-wisconsin-voters-registered-mor/

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-wisconsin-election-2020-government-and-politics-daa3ac227c936d7fc038996af6e27cbe

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/12/17/fact-check-illegal-votes-wisconsin-not-larger-than-biden-victory/8895829002/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/nine-election-fraud-claims-none-credible/


Thanks...

Theme Song

Theme Song