Teflon Intellects: Impenetrability leading to war

Call me Quixotic – I I keep attempting to engage them in discussion; I know, it’s like banging your head against an Adamantium wall but hope springs eternal.  If, looking more and more like when, the balloon goes up and it’s time for “I do not talk with liberals; they are only for killing” I want to be able to look at myself in the mirror honestly to say I tried my damnedest to prevent it with words.

But they’re not making it easy.  They are the anointed; as aptly described by Dr. Thomas Sowell in his book The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, they’re utterly immune to facts, reason, logic, and evidence that contradict their vision of the world and how it should be.  (I’m almost done with this phenomenal book and I can’t recommend it strongly enough; every page has notes, underlines, and comments that I’ve written in the hopes that my children will read this book and not only see things that I believe are important – but come to understand their father better.)

Coupled with this is a seething arrogance.  Consider this quote, pulled from the comments here (warning, gag alert if you go there) and just imagine the mindset of this person; do you think they even view Conservatives as human, because it's doubtful:

Sean Hannity this, Sean Hannity that. You'd think he was going to cross our flank do a backward summersault and cut us off at the pass. On what meat hath this our Hannity fed? He is a mountain of mad flesh, a bolting hutch of beastliness, a bunch-backed toad, a gull, a dolt, as ignorant as dirt, a mere piece of wayward marl. Forget Hannity. We can get rid of him once we reinstitute the fairness doctrine, gutted by Saint Ronald of Reagan - you remember Reagan? The man who was going to overthrow communist dictatorship even as he laid the ground work for oligarchic dictatorship and open authoritarianism here in the US.
But your real mistake, Mssr. Levitz, is that you have argued from - gasp - history. And these people are profoundly ignorant of it and proud of the fact. They must be eliminated through, frankly, disenfranchisement. I am in profound favor these days of Platonic rule by experts.
Let's face the truth. Politics is a blanket phrase that allows the ignorant to put in their uninformed two cents about policy. It is a phantom mirage, and there should be no such thing as "politics". There is history, as you note, science, the law, sociology, economics, civics, statistics, and either you understand and know these and make policy based on these disciplines to create the maximum security and happiness for our country, or you do not.
That is no guarantee - I wince when I see the phrase "College Educated Republicans" (how? why?)

First, though, please do take the time to review my first two essays on the topic: Teflon Intellects, followed by Teflon Intellects in the Wild.



MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS ON THE ISLAMIST INVASION

Post-Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life shooting and my essay on the subject of combating anti-Semitism, I reached out to a pro-migration Rabbi with a lengthy letter.  In this letter I pleaded with him to put aside the insane Jewish advocacy of more Islamic migration – something I started criticizing in Civilizational Collapse and the Brain (links in the original):

And within living memory of the Shoah (Holocaust) and the near annihilation of our people, my fellow Jews in America want more Islamic refugees to America… despite Synagogues in France (let alone elsewhere in Europe) needing armed guards 24/7 and even concertina wire atop newly-installed high fences with closed-circuit cameras for protection against those very same refugees.  Synagogues are firebombed by Islamists, Rabbis openly talk about needing protection to live openly-Jewish lives, anti-Semitism is rising, Muslims across Europe scream “Jews, remember Khaybar” – a reference to a battle where Mohammed slaughtered Jews en masse.  Despite all these, and Imams all over calling for Jews to be killed – in Houston, in California, in Holland, in North Carolina, everywhere (three alone since President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital) – and the historical precedent of Mohammed himself and the anti-Semitism codified in the Koran itself… Jews write letters to the editor wanting more migrants. 


By word and deed, in America and Europe, [Islamic immigrants] say they want to kill us.  I have the moral courage to believe them.

Why don't you?

This letter was not just a letter; I had over a dozen footnotes to articles from such sites as Gatestone Institute, Jihad Watch, Pamela Geller, FrontPage Magazine, Gates of Vienna, citations of Bill Warner videos like Why We Are Afraid, plus other references… as well as this graphic of what refugee Mohammed himself did to Jews:



I pointed out multiple instances where Imams in the US called for Jews to be killed, with attributed quotations.  I built a solid case to stop Islamic immigration – let alone what I thought was a reasonable case for the ongoing perception that Jews want this as a demographic transformation, something I condemned in G-d Damn You Barbara Spectre!  And… cue crickets.  No reply.

At least I did get a reply from a SJW Jewish article writer who, also, wrote in praise of ongoing Islamic immigration.  When I wrote to them, very briefly, about the crime waves in Europe – assaults, robberies, rapes, and murders of Europeans in general, not to mention the astronomical rise in openly-expressed Jew-hatred by these migrants – they flat-out dismissed and disbelieved anything I said.

There wasn’t a “Where did you hear that?” or “Can you back that up?” or anything which you’d think a professional writer – of all people – would be interested in checking out; instead was a total and complete lack of curiosity.  Again, it comported precisely with my understanding of their mentality where anything that doesn’t match their template of what should be is automatically rejected.

But this was the only answer I’ve ever gotten from pro-migration Jews, or Jews who decry the meme “Jews will not replace us” without having any clue where it comes from.  You can’t fight, let alone make progress, against an enemy – anti-Semites – whose motivation you don’t understand… but there’s no motion to understand.

I’ve written to others, including a Jewish state elected official whose idea of “Jews will not replace us” is the idea that we Jews will outbreed and then, demographically, replace non-Jews – absolutely not what it means at all, but cue crickets again when I wrote to them.  Again, not even an attempt to ask “What makes you think that?” or “I never heard that!” or anything.

Time and time and time again I reach out to people, not accusing, not attacking, but attempting to engage in a conversation.  If I get a reply at all, which is rare, it’s an immediate dismissal of anything I point out.

The utter lack of curiosity, of open-mindedness, of simply saying “Wow, I had not heard that before – please, I’d like to know more!” is not just appalling to me on an intellectual level for it indicates a complete dearth of curiosity plus a lack of humility, but is frightening on a societal level… for if we cannot even discuss, not agree with but just discuss, alternate points of view and different information sources, a civil war is inevitable.  It becomes a narrowing of the Overton Window to the point where nothing substantive can be discussed.



PRO-GUN ATTEMPTS

I recently made an attempt to challenge an anti-gun Rabbi who posted on LinkedIn to that effect.  An aside note, anyone who has read my prior three essays on gun control…




cannot possibly come away with a conclusion that I am also anti-gun; on the contrary, I am absolutely for the common-sense understanding of the Second Amendment – i.e., a Right of the People not subject to government approval.

But I reached out, conversationally, to try and engage the man.  He replied with a brush-off.  I offered to send him, gratis, a copy of ARMED: New Perspectives on Gun Control.  No answer.

After an anti-gun op-ed piece in the newspaper of a former school I wrote to the author in an attempt to engage him.  Pointing out that the Second Amendment was in place as a last-ditch measure to preserve liberty, what I got was the standard trope of “the US military has all these weapons and you’ll be a DNA smear” answer.  Never mind the impracticality of confiscation, Belling the Cat, as highlighted by New Jersey gun owners’ non-compliance with the new magazine law… there is active resistance to consider; i.e., The 2nd Amendment is Obsolete, Says Congressman Who Wants To Nuke Omaha:

There will be no secure delivery of ammo, food, and fuel, because the guys who build that, grow that, and ship that, well, you just dropped a Hellfire on his cousin Bill because he wouldn’t turn over his SKS. Fuck you. Starve. And that’s assuming they don’t still make the delivery but the gas is tainted and food is poisoned.

Oh wait… Poison? That would be unsportsmanlike! Really? Because your guy just brought up nuclear weapons. What? You think that you’re going to declare war on half of America, with rules of engagement that would make Genghis Khan blush, and my side would keep using Marquis of Queensbury rules?

But RTWT!

A not-active-duty Marine friend of mine can hit a couple-of-inches group from 100+ yards and his friend, with whom he goes shooting regularly, was a sniper and can do a similar group from, well, significantly farther than that.  So I challenged another anti-gun person with whom I have locked horns on occasion, until they blocked me from posting on their blog, to step outside their front door, look around, and see just how many places are within 100 yards – and to grasp that in a hot war, they will not be immune.  I saw this a while ago, I don’t recall where:

From a place you cannot see can come a sound you will not hear.

No politician or proponent of confiscation, even in deep blue states, would be safe; and not just unsafe from pro-gun partisans in direct action.  Consider this paragraph from the same long essay as the two paragraphs above:

The scariest single conversation I’ve ever heard in my life was five Special Forces guys having a fun thought exercise about how they would bring a major American city to its knees. They picked Chicago, because it was a place they’d all been. It was fascinating, and utterly terrifying. And I’ll never ever put any of it in a book, because I don’t want to give crazy people any ideas. Give it about a week and people would be eating each other…

Somehow I think life would get awfully complicated for people in cities, where Leftists are concentrated, but even attempting to point any of these cold, hard facts to people and they flee the engagement saying “You’re scaring me!”

Pointing out the inevitable consequences of starting a civil war is scary?  Saying this is a bad thing, and would directly impact them is scary?  More generally, discussing consequences of actions is scary?  Mentioning that the Rules of Engagement they propose for use against Americans don’t pass their own muster against foreigners… and let’s not ignore the one person who told me “Well, we’ll just have UN troops come in if the US military won’t do it” – as though that wouldn’t get pretty much every military person, active duty or not, not to mention a metric f*ckton of patriots without military experience but with woodsman and hunting experience against them. 

It’s like they can’t even conceive things wouldn’t go their way in a cake walk against the slopedforeheadknuckledraggers.  Their overconfidence, their pride which so often goes before a fall… that’s what’s scary.



IOT IDIOCY, FINANCIAL CRASHES, ETC.

In my professional life I’ve seen column after article after essay praising self-driving cars, goods-producing robots, the magic of the IoT (including connected tooth-brushes and excrement-analyzing toilets), and so on.  The downsides for privacy and the possibilities of big-tech analysis, let alone control, of lives down to the minutiae of life never enter their minds (not to get lurid, but I remember reading about a vibrator with a camera in it… an IoT-connected camera at that; never mind the camera, who thinks connecting this to the internet is a good idea?).  Nor does the fact that all these technological marvels rely on electricity – which is now, utterly, taken for granted despite reality:

[Lights Out! The Chaos When Our Grid Goes Down | Bill Whittle / 7:12]


Do I like modern conveniences?  Absolutely.  Do I wish for an EMP to wipe out the grid for a year or two – even assuming one could easily be reactivated in that time?  No, no, no!  But only a simpleton can’t recognize that these complex systems require maintenance, and foreseeable calamitous problems must be anticipated and the worst effects pre-emptively addressed.  Even to mention these, though, is taken as being a Luddite and overly negative.

And I don’t think it can be overly-stated how such widespread automation will affect employment.  Does it not occur to these tech geniuses that people without jobs don’t buy things?  (I know, I know, “Creative Destruction” – but this is not a few jobs here or there, this is massive displacements of large numbers of people across enormous swaths of the economy – and not taking generations, like prior displacements, but happening within a decade.)

[Humans Need Not Apply / 15:00]



AN ECONOMIC HOUSE OF CARDS

And revisiting a very early essay of mine, Running Out of Financial Road… as I was writing it I was talking with a looney-leftie coworker of mine who said, with a sneer and a dismissing wave of his hand, “There’s not going to be a financial collapse”!

But see the more recent Are Liberals Finally Driving Their States Off The Fiscal Cliff?  And this is just at the state level, never mind the federal, or world, debt and unfunded liabilities.  Quoting my essay (links and bolding in the original):

And while this article, Global debt hits all-time high of $152 trillion as IMF warns of world-wide economic stagnation, shows a lower global debt figure, contemplate 217 vs. 152. That’s a disparity of over $50 trillion in estimates of the global debt, which shows that nobody really knows what it is with any accuracy.

I speculate that even if we strip-mined the planet down to the Moho, this could not be repaid.

There’s no stopping what can’t be stopped, despite Trump – and other populists – making the attempt.  And two great graphics from TheoSpark:





Yet it’s whistling past the graveyard whenever any of these financial facts – actual, provable, quantifiable facts – are brought up.



CHALLENGING THE CLIMATE PRIESTHOOD

One of the subjects I get very annoyed about is (cue ominous music) “climate change”.  Again, being in a STEM field I get particularly annoyed when someone spews not knowing what the scientific method is.  (I remember one time when I got the "97% of climate scientists..." stat thrown at me.  I asked "What's the provenance of that statistic?"  Baffled look.  "Was it the two-question survey done by an Illinois graduate student, using data and criteria that have never been reproduced, or...?"  A thinking person should have said "Gee, this person clearly knows a lot more about this than I do - perhaps an opportunity to learn?"  Instead, they literally, physically, fled the conversation.)

At one of the schools I went to, a Warmist wrote an op-ed piece about science “deniers” and the need to – quite literally – evangelize to us deluded fools.  I wrote the author; no reply (of course).  To my surprise they did publish the letter to the editor I wrote but, of course, there’s no rejoinder; I suspect they think if they don’t reply, it will die quietly.

Let me be very clear: is pollution a bad thing?  Yes, and we – especially the US – have made enormous strides in combating it.  But CO2 is not a pollutant.  What’s worse, I find people who have no idea of the actual climate history of the earth, or the fact that CO2 PPM levels were ten times what they are today.  So much for being informed, but when I inform them of that, even to the point of offering to put money down on a bet, they run.  They also flee when I ask “If they’re so confident that it’s happening and provably caused by mankind, why do they hide their data from being examined?”.
More dangerously; they truly believe that CO2 emissions will end all life on earth.  Let me repeat that: they believe mankind's use of fossil fuels will end all life on earth.  If you truly believed that the entirety of life on earth was at stake, what would you not do to stop it?  Destroy civilization?  Encourage plagues?  Provoke continent-wide wars?  All these things would help set back humanity's CO2 emissions.  And let us not forget the voluntary human extinction movement.



MISSING FEEDBACK

One of the key factors in thinking people is the ability to accept feedback and adjust; this does not have to be verbal feedback, but could simply be results of actions.  This critical connection is, as Sowell notes in his book, lacking in the Left (not to say it’s not always present on the Right!).  Another is, as I alluded to, a sense of humility.  Nobody has perfect knowledge; the anointed, as Sowell puts them, believe they do.

Intelligent, thinking people doubt.  They question, even when convinced they’re right because they allow for the possibility they could be wrong.  That possibility does not exist for Leftists, especially as they tend to lock themselves into echo chambers and deliberately expel foreign thoughts, and persons who hold foreign thoughts.



CANNOT ARGUE WITH FAITH

As a good friend of mine notes on occasion, Leftists are not “fully formed” individuals.  They lack humility.  They lack the ability to question.  And they are so full of moral superiority because of what they believe – I’m not the first person, nor will I be the last, to note that Leftism is a faith (link in the original):

Leftism is not simply one opinion among many. For the Left’s votaries, it’s closer to a religion. It’s not enough that one is himself a vegan, drives a Prius, doesn’t own guns, rejects the traditional family, or anything else that goes with the lifestyle. It is essential that everyone else does so. Any deviations are “backwardness” and “divisive” or worse.

And therein lies the issue: their belief in themselves as good people relies on specific beliefs.  To question those beliefs means they will question their view of themselves as good people.  When someone truly believes – can I get a “Hallelujah, Marx!”? – they are on the side of divine right, there is no argument that can penetrate.



WHEN FAITHS CLASH

There will be war.  There cannot not be.  For the Lord Marx is a jealous god; there is no place in his world for those with faith or belief in anything beyond him.

RIP, The Great Experiment.  Start making plans… plans to protect your families.  Plans on taking the fight to the enemy.  Get to know like-minded people.  For it will be on the basis of small-group tactics, not sweeping maneuvers of grand armies, wherein we take America back. 



---



"I do not coexist with cancer; I do not find common ground with gangrene.  The Left must be fought and destroyed, or America dies."


© 2019, NITZAKHON

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The .223 Solution

An Open Letter to a Politically-Conservative Jewish Friend

Gratuitous Rule Five Friday: Pretty Faces