“A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.” Anthony Daniels
“In order for democrats, liberals, progressives et al to continue their illogical belief systems they have to pretend not to know a lot of things.” David Mamet
Just how much of modern life is a pantomime? How many beliefs are we obliged to espouse that are simply not true? Why do we feel obliged in the first place? And what effect does this great pretending have on us and society at large?
It is quite apparent that we, the people are being forced into corners by the elites and their progressive fellow travelers who wish to enforce their orthodoxy – whatever that happens to be this week – and will not brook dissent. The items on this list of fallacies cover many bases in our culture and have a profound effect on our future and not one these narratives is even in the same parish as the truth. Let me elucidate and reference the most destructive.
Recently, we have been treated to one of the progressive's more ludicrous spectacles, whereby they refuse to define what a woman is and, even worse, they claim that men can have babies too. Attempting to understand the logic behind these assertions is a futile endeavor and an absolute waste of valuable time. Nonetheless, we are obliged to pretend that these claims are true and that, furthermore, there are more than two sexes because gender isn't based on chromosomes, but on the rather more ephemeral basis of whatever that person identifies as at any given time.
There is no room for alternative opinions; we cannot 'deadname' a person. No, a man with mental health issues who has cut off his genitalia and taken oestrogen by the bucket-load is she/her, not he/him. He doesn't even have to go old school to be given a key to a locker in the ladies' changing room; transvestites who identify as a woman are also welcome. This is clearly arrant nonsense, morally and scientifically unacceptable. That doesn't stop it being real.
Then we have the sacred cow of systemic racism and the whole slavery scam. I say scam, not because white people didn't enslave black people, but because every other race also enslaved other races and also their own. Therefore, proportionality is somewhat lacking. We must pretend that slavery is the white man's original sin, that we are inherently racist when it isn't remotely true. Again, we must hold two mutually exclusive sets of facts as the truth.
We have to pretend that the Barbary pirates didn't exist if, of course, we've even heard of them. They operated out of North Africa for centuries, from medieval times to the eighteen hundreds and, as well as war booty and treasure seized on land and sea, they were also ruthless slavers who ranged throughout the Mediterranean and even as far as Iceland. They captured white Europeans, perhaps as many as 850,000 over the years. They are the reason many European towns were built inland, rather than on the coast.
The pirates were major players on the world stage. Between 1609 and 1616, England alone lost 466 ships to them. Some states pre-emptively collected 'slave funds'. The United States, as a nascent republic, signed treaties with the North African states that obliged the latter to protect American shipping in the Mediterranean. The Americans still found it necessary to pay a substantial annual tribute to the pirates themselves, equivalent to 20% of the federal government's expenditure.(1)
This history is on the down low. We are instead excoriated if we point out that England was the first Great Power to repudiate slavery and that she expended much blood and treasure in the subsequent implementation of this policy. Or if we make what is an obvious point and state that the American Civil War was fought on the issue of slavery (even if the historical revisionists try to wish that fact away) and that hundreds of thousands of white Americans died as a result. And how do we think the slave trade worked? Do we think that white Europeans ventured far inland capturing black Africans as they went? Or, rather, that other black Africans had already done the hard part and rounded them up to hold as prisoners at the ports?
I'm not sure how much sport you watch, but there are a good number of sports in which black athletes are significantly over-represented; soccer, gridiron, boxing and basketball to name but four. How does that happen in systematically racist societies? We must also acknowledge the huge contributions that black rappers, singers and dancers have had on our cultures, while simultaneous self flagellating because we are biased against black people. We cannot observe that anti-racism is racism by another name, but against white people this time. We are enjoined against pointing out that equity is equality of outcome by another name, which kills any and all motivation to excel and is, ironically, the polar opposite of what elite black performers are striving for.
While wrestling with double-think, we are also obliged to ignore the evidence of our own eyes and pretend that differences between races don't exist, when they clearly do and it would be wholly illogical if they didn't. For black athletes, read Asian students. Infamously, Harvard has anti-Asian quotas in place because these students are too adept at getting the grades necessary for entrance. Because, you see, diversity only goes so far. It's fine to celebrate black achievements and their over-representation in sports and culture, but not fine to allow Asians to be similarly over-represented in academia. I forget to pretend for a moment, there. But the judge who left the policy in place didn't.(2)
Next we have the policing of speech and the abomination of 'hate speech'. Because there is no longer any acknowledged moral framework, as everything is now relative, then everything is also subjective. As that is now the case then, logically, we are compelled to demote intent and replace it with feelings. Instead of being required to find that the guilty party meant to cause harm, we are now instructed to rely on the feelings of the 'victim' instead.
And, if we do that, we are handing the reins of society over to the mentally infirm and the malcontents, the ones who could take offence if someone wished them a good morning. This is how we have arrived at a position (in some Western countries and coming to your country soon) where the aforementioned mentally ill man who has had himself medically mutilated can compel the rest of us to call him her on pain of prosecution, instead of being diagnosed with body dysmorphia and sent to a psychiatrist.
Compelled speech is not free speech. Free speech no longer exists. Naturally, we are 'encouraged' to pretend that it does, in much the same way that the Americans still rattle on about saving a constitution that was subverted over a century ago by the first progressives to form an administration and which has been crumpled up and stomped on ever since by virtue of FDR's New Deal, LBJ's Great Society, affirmative action and the whole panoply of progressive ideology.
It's an uncomfortable truth that is rarely accepted, but free speech that is circumscribed – for any reason whatsoever – is no longer free speech. Prohibiting use of the n word, outlawing the ability to shout 'fire' in a theater and criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust are all restrictions on free speech. People who say any of those things may be regarded by the rest of us with the contempt they richly deserve and, were there to be swift physical retribution dished out by an injured party, most of us would probably look the other way. But criminalizing these actions was always going to be the thin end of the wedge and so it has proved. And, even when the courts have declined the invitation to involve themselves, the culture warriors have enforced their own social orthodoxy.
It may surprise you to learn that the United States' Supreme Court has explicitly stated that 'hate speech' has no legal meaning. This finding seems to have been given short shrift across the pond. In the UK, 'hate speech' has found its way into the legal code and, predictably 'hate incidents' are based on the cognizance of the 'victim', not the actual intent of the 'offender'.(3) In addition, 'hate' is an aggravating factor in many offences. If an assault is believed to be racially motivated, the sentence is likely to be more severe. Think about that for a moment. Aside from the fact that intent should only be important in proving that an assault was the desired end product; there should be no attempt to rank intent in a subjective order.
If I attack a black person because I don't like black people, I will pay an extra premium. Similarly, if I attacked a gay person because I don't like homosexuals. But if I attack a fat person or an old person because I am prejudiced against those groups of people, there is no additional penalty. Why not? We can probably all agree that attacking an individual solely on the basis of his or her group identity is ignorant and that, if we are going to upgrade a sentence because of it (personally, I don't see why we should), then all groups should be equally represented. But we already know how that game is played, even with race; White Lives Matter didn't end well, did it?
We are obliged to pretend that some groups are more important than others – racial minorities, the disabled and anyone who isn't heterosexual, basically. The law is supposed to criminalize behavior that demonstrates prejudice towards religion also; but only some religions. Not Christianity, for instance.(4) Of course, there is no basis for proclaiming that some groups are first amongst equals – it's a lie. But the topic is a sensitive one. So much so that I suspect it is rarely even discussed in private and that's a problem because, if discussion is censored, then the logical end points of ideology or law are never expressed and arguments like the ones I have just presented can shock, rather than be accepted as obvious conclusions.
As we know, the latest cudgel being wielded in the battle for the further restriction of free speech is the misinformation/disinformation gag. This is so obviously corrupt; it's the work of moment to realize that this latest excuse for censorship is being used in an entirely arbitrary and subjective fashion, with absolutely no heed being paid to anything as substantial as facts. To further observe that these concepts will be manipulated to serve the interests of whoever holds the societal reins is to find oneself persecuted by the gatekeepers of acceptability. It's basic and childish and amounts to regimes saying that the truth is what the say it is and if you don't accept that without demur, you are a racist/denier/anti-vaxxer/insert any other pejorative that is de jour.
There are other important pretends. A current example is the discussion around when it is that we will be in a recession. It's a textbook case of how the regime goes about dealing with any issue that disfavors it. The fact of the matter is that the US (and most of the West) has been in a recession since the end of June – the end of the second quarter. But the cabal simply denies the evidence of our eyes and attempts to re-define what a recession is.(5) This is then seized upon by the liberal press and endlessly regurgitated for public consumption. Even now, those same outlets are earnestly debating whether there may just be a contraction of GDP in 2023 and we are supposed to go along with it.(6)
In similar vein, we are required to swear fealty to the ridiculous notion that raising interest rates to 4% when inflation is running at 10% plus will do anything other than cripple the economy because, additionally, the problem is the cost of the supply side, not an overabundance of spending power on the demand side. All it will do is increase mortgage payments and interest payments on the credit cards that people are having to use to buy essentials. But the legacy financial media won't be honest and, if we are to confront the truth, our whole mental construct might come crashing down, because how can the professionals not recognize the problem when we can? Answer; they do. It's deliberate.
Then there's the war in Ukraine. We are supposed to believe the ludicrous proposition that the most corrupt country in Europe (and possibly the most brutal), which has been a US puppet state since at least 2014 - when they played king-maker by assisting in the removal of a democratically elected president who was too pro-Russian for their palate and his subsequent, unconstitutional replacement with a more friendly face – must be defended at all costs. The leaked 'phone call between the Assistant Secretary of State and the Ambassador to Ukraine is an unintentional mea culpe.(7) We must also make no mention of the fact that the war started then, not in February, and that the Ukrainian government has spent the intervening period shelling its own citizens in the Donbas.
Since February, the US alone has spent over $90 billion on this endeavor. The UK and others have also opened the bouncing cheque book. Somewhat unsurprisingly, given the lack of oversight, only around 30% of the weapons supplied to the Ukrainians make it to the front lines – a good proportion of the rest is siphoned off and sold for vast profits.(8) Presumably, cash is even easier to sequester.
But why are we even involved in the first place? Well, Russia has been the pantomime villain of choice since 1945 and old habits die hard. Plus, the West has spent decades antagonizing the Russians by signing up ex Warsaw Pact nations (which it said it wouldn't do), even those bordering Russia itself. And, as is usual in these matters, you can tell when the deep state is lying because you can see Biden's lips moving. They can't tell the truth any more – they've forgotten how to, if they ever knew and, as their agenda is in all other respects antithetical to our best interests, we would be well advised to distrust every single word unless proven otherwise.
Putin's special military operation is, on one level, yet another shiny thing that can be used to distract us and draw our attention away from the truth, which is that the regimes are using the conflict to harm us, primarily. Of course, they'll fight to the last Ukrainian and, if Zelensky wants to live long enough to spend his plunder, he will avoid negotiations with Putin at all costs – the neo-Nazis of the Azov Battalion have made their intentions clear on that subject and they involve a lamppost, a short rope and a long drop.
So, Russia will be the bogeyman for a little while yet and Western boots on the ground can not be ruled out when there are no Ukrainian boots left. The sanctions that the West has levied against Putin will continue to perform their true purpose, which is to screw us, dismantle our economies, break everything else and Build Back Better – for the elites. It is laughably transparent.
But anyone pointing any of this out is gifted a regime endorsed label; we've already been treated to a number of them, including the 'denier' tag that has been rolled out twice already (see climate change and election fraud), but this time it's something new – 'Putin apologist'. There's no point protesting either. As should be obvious by now, facts don't matter any more and, as naturally follows, any attempt to establish them is to be devoutly discouraged. We must pretend that we believe was the Liars-in-Chief tell us or, at the very least, have the decency to pretend that we do.
The war is being leveraged in the same way that climate change has been for decades. Yes – newsflash; the same people insisting all the other BS is true are also all-in on climate change, too. Which, even without the overwhelming evidence that refutes their prognosis, ought to be enough to give pause for thought, regardless. This particular pretending is, perhaps, the greatest and most damaging of all. So much of what they are attempting to do to us is only possible if this particular scam is defended with everything they've got.
The alleged role of man made emissions in climate change is the causus belli of all the energy policies that have left us in the parlous position we are in. Also, part of the justification for digital ID depends on the continued primacy of the cult of Global Warming, because it will be used as justification for social credit scores and individual carbon footprints which will, in turn, be the reason for making Central Bank Digital Currencies programmable. And if they get that far, they'll really have us by the short and curlies. We are, therefore, obliged to keep our heads down and pretend that we cannot see what is going on, which is that the evidence of our lyin' eyes must be ignored.
And then, of course, there is Covid. The current orthodoxy, if I've been keeping up, still holds that Covid is a wild virus, that the 'vaccines' are actually vaccines rather than experimental gene therapies and that they are 'safe and effective'. None of this is accurate and it does seem that, outside the cult of the Branch Covidians, most people have worked out at least some of the truth.
“In a time of considerable speech-policing with high social and financial penalties, don’t watch what people say. Watch what they do. They won’t criticize woke television content, but they won’t pay for Netflix. They mouth the local pieties about “our unhoused neighbors,” but they call a realtor in another state. They refuse to see the data on the mRNA injections, but they protect their children from them.”(9)
However, we are still in the ridiculous position of, on the one hand, knowing that the 'vaccine' doesn't prevent infection and transmission – as confirmed by Pfizer's evidence to the EU and by their own documents released by the FDA – while, on the other hand, watching the G20 leaders announce that they will advocate for a Covid passport for safe travel.(10) Or, put another way, unless you get a jab that doesn't fulfill its stated purpose, you won't be going anywhere.
It's remarkable, really. Their adherence to the plan, no matter what. And it's representative of the contempt in which they hold us. There is no possible way to logically lobby for a digital document that cannot possibly do what it says on the tin. If you can still catch and pass on Covid after the jab, then the passport has absolutely no utility. Therefore, the fact that they are still pushing it means that it must be vital to some other purpose. It is, twofold – forcing more of us to get vaccinated and as a precursor to an all encompassing digital ID that will control us and our money.
In addition, we must all know someone who was previously healthy but now – post jab – aren't. They may even have died from a heart issue, a stroke or some fast acting auto-immune disease or cancer. Given that, if we take the time to extrapolate, it is undeniable that we are in the throes of an epidemic of excess deaths. Judging by the lack of take-up of the latest booster, a large cohort may have realized this truth. And yet, even when the evidence is telling us that the regimes that rule us are still trying to force us to maim or kill ourselves, we remain mute. We still pretend.
I've covered election fraud a fair bit, especially the US 2020 election and the mid-terms just gone, both of which were blatantly fraudulent. For now, it's enough to ask this simple question – what do you call it when one party subverts the democratic process and steals an election? You call it a coup; a soft coup, without the need for some colonel (why is it seemingly always a colonel?) to rumble up to the presidential palace in a tank, but it's still a coup. This, in the country that is supposed to be the leader of the free world.
How on earth have we arrived here? In a place where at least some of us know the truth about many matters of crucial significance that, globally, regimes are lying about to our collective detriment and yet we allow them to keep doing so? I will acknowledge that there have been protests about lock-downs and mandates, but they have tended to dissipate when the cabals momentarily back off. But the same leaders are still there and they've not been held to account; we seem to lack the appetite for it. But does anybody doubt that they'll keep coming?
We are living a fake existence, because we are obliged to parrot obvious lies and pretend that we don't know the truth. How many are afflicted with this condition is an open question, because we would need to know how many people have their doubts. I believe it's likely to be more than we think, which is not to say that those that have not allowed their critical faculties to atrophy completely will ever so anything about what they know to be true, or even acknowledge a scintilla of doubt that the narrative isn't anything other than the unalloyed truth. But they almost certainly sway in whichever current in stronger, which is useful to know.
I believe that the conundrum can best be explained by reference to personality types. Reasonable people prefer to mediate and compromise. They don't think it wise to die in a ditch over every single issue. This is a worthwhile approach when dealing with other reasonable people. But they're not. They're dealing with bullies and the way to deal with them is fundamentally different. Bullies must be resisted at every turn, as they won't compromise. If they get a taste for winning, they won't stop. If the reasonable person doesn't recognize who they're dealing with and doesn't therefore push back hard the first time, the bully will form the impression that they have encountered an easy touch that will never push back and they will be relentless. And they are, aren't they?
They're also amoral. Their capacity for lies and obfuscation is seemingly bottomless and, now that we are clearly approaching the end game and they've been racking up the wins, my guess is that they are starting to feel unassailable. They don't then feel the need to bother camouflaging the contradictions any more. They don't have enough respect for us and they don't have any fear of us. Others think they're terrified and desperate. I don't think that's right; it doesn't fit their personality type. They are much more likely to be arrogant and overbearing and I think that is what we are seeing. And all of this leads directly to our Great Pretending, which I am sure amuses them mightily.
There is no way for us to reconcile numerous contradictions but, if we wish to remain in good standing, we must pretend that we can and that involves engaging in double-think. We must assert that the 'vaccines' do all that the regimes claim they do (even though we know they don't) in order to accommodate the prospect of 'vaccine' passports. If challenged, we must avow that biological sex has no relationship to gender, even though we know it does, so that we can continue to swim in the mainstream.
We must pretend that the conflict in Ukraine isn't a proxy war and that it is in our best interests to continue to send vast sums of money to a corrupt regime that's in hock to a bunch of neo-Nazis, when it manifestly isn't, because it is clear that the West is suffering more than Putin. We know, if we are sentient beings with inquiring minds, that the elites in the US can't give a monkeys about democracy in Ukraine if they are prepared to mount a domestic coup via the medium of election fraud, but we pretend that we don't.
Totalitarian regimes seem to self implode in the end, but it can be a long while coming. The Soviet Union took seventy years and China and North Korea are past that and still counting. This is what lies in wait for us. If we wish to avoid trudging over the edge into the abyss, we'll have to actively do something. But what? I suggest we target the enemy where they are most vulnerable.
I suspect some of them have enough self awareness to realize where that is, but most are too busy putting their pedal to the metal to think about it. My guess is that they aren't most vulnerable to the possibility that some people realize that the Emperor has no clothes, but they are vulnerable to the possibility that these people will tell other people that the Emperor's in his birthday suit.
If that were to happen, it would mean that the regime's strong-arm tactics had become ineffectual. It might also mean that these people would be prepared to defy the orthodoxy, regardless. It might even mean that these people no longer cared what the regime thought of them and that would rightly be viewed as a dangerous threat. If we don't care what somebody thinks of us, they lose power over us; power that we have ceded to them. This means that, when they are unreasonable, we cease compromising, we stop making allowances and we no longer spare their feelings. We stop pretending that all is as it should be.
I appreciate that this is easier said than done – that people have livelihoods and social and familial structures that they wish to retain and that giving the finger to the machine will likely have unpleasant consequences. However, some have less to lose than others and it is incumbent upon those of us who are less vulnerable to risk more. That would seem fair. Some resistance will need to be more carefully calibrated. However, at the very least, we all need to stop pretending that we are true believers in all the various narratives. That doesn't mean we should use our given name to suddenly start writing an incendiary blog inveighing against the globalists. But it does mean that we stop feeding the beast that is determined to eat us.
There's no getting away from this fact either – pretending is weakness. It's an abrogation of self. It means that the other party is in the ascendancy, that they control us and that they can force us into a make-believe world.
“Those who get to impose fresh irrational indignities on the rest of us are the upper caste. Those who object, or even have reservations, are lower.”(11)
They need us to pretend, otherwise the manifest stupidity of us participating in our own societal demise would be front and center and unignorable. This level of pretending constitutes a heavy psychic load. Not only is there frequently a need to expend mental energy in thinking carefully before speaking or writing, so that we might not fall foul of the thought police; there is also the stress-inducing possibility that one might still be in error, due to the tendency of the sands to shift. What was previously acceptable can swiftly be designated 'beyond the pale' and, due to the capricious nature of the progressive mind, there is no way of telling what that might be ahead of time.
If open disagreement is too much of an ask, then just don't agree instead. Say nothing, remain neutral, maybe ask a question or two about evidence. Those ordinary people that seek to police us, on social media or elsewhere, may be doing so simply because they know that the emergence of the truth would expose their weakness. Just don't allow yourself to be complicit in your own subjugation because, no matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise, if you're reading this you know that subjugation is what is being attempted. And you also know that, because you are not ignorant of that fact, it would be worse to go along with it – you can't claim to have been duped. And that mental anguish would be the cherry on top of the sundae for the sociopaths in charge.
So, resist in your own way. Try and push the envelope. But stop pretending and start stripping their power from them, because it's only a matter of time before we have traveled so far from reality that it will be impossible to navigate a way back.
Citations
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates#Barbarossa_brothers
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom
(4) Ditto
(5) https://nypost.com/2022/07/25/biden-plays-orwell-tries-to-redefine-what-recession-means/
(6) https://sovren.media/video/leaked-2014-nuland-pyatt-phone-call-planning-coup-in-ukraine-1181.html
(8)
(9)
(11) https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/