A Great Replacement Theory

According to (recent) American media (*) there are no Nazis in Ukraine. Check out this Newsweek article: Fact Check: Buffalo Shooting Suspect Misleadingly Linked to Ukraine 'Nazis'. 

"Photos shared on social media show Gendron and a Ukrainian soldier, both of which featured a controversial Nazi-associated symbol known as the Black Sun. A deeply racist "manifesto" he is said to have written, and shared online, included the same symbol."

Just to be clear: Newsweek isn't denying that the Buffalo shooter is wearing the same Nazi symbol worn by some Ukrainian soldiers. The symbol they share has not been 'debunked'. 

"These social media posts imply that Ukrainian forces and Payton Gendron are ideologically linked. The symbol, known in German as "Schwarze Sonne" or "Sonnenrad," has its origins in ancient Norse pagan pictographics, but was widely adopted in Nazi occultism. It has been used by far-right elements across the globe, including in Ukraine, where it has featured on the official logo of the National Guard's Azov Regiment."

Just to be clear: Newsweek is reporting that this Nazi symbol has in fact been the official logo of the Azov Regiment. That some Ukrainian soldiers wear Nazi symbology has not been 'debunked'.

"The purported link between Gendron and the Ukrainian forces appears to be based on the Black Sun alone. Yet what evidence is available appears to contradict any meaningful association between the two. Gendron felt contempt for Ukraine, not admiration...on social media app Discord, where he described the country as a "corrupt s*** hole."

The Azov Battalion is not the nation of Ukraine. Indeed, the Azov Battalion may well agree that the Kiev gov't is or has been corrupt. 

"There is no known link between Payton Gendron and pro-Ukrainian forces. Some of Azov's relatively small group of fighters are on the extreme right and have used the same Nazi symbolism, as the alleged Buffalo shooter, specifically the Black Sun. But this single aesthetic link is as far as any substantive connection between the two goes."

So the Buffalo shooter wears the same Nazi symbol as the Azov Battalion but there's no reason to think there's a connection. He didn't specifically name check Azov and seems to think Ukraine is corrupt (he's not the only one, apparently). But the fact that both wear the same Nazi symbol is not a "substantive connection"?  Hmmmmmmmmmm.....okay. 

Now check out this NPR transcribed interview titled: What the shooting in Buffalo has to do with Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Kinda sounds like NPR is trying to say there's a connection between Carlson and the shooter. Here's the very first question and answer of the interview: 

KELLY: David, you start. And let's start there with Tucker Carlson, who - just to be clear, he is not mentioned in this 180-page screed that authorities say the alleged gunman posted online. Right?
FOLKENFLIK: Yeah. He's not anywhere in there, not at all. 

From then on the Buffalo shooter  is never mentioned again! Indeed, the whole conversation is mostly about Trump running for president in 2024, though they do mention a little about Tucker Carlson's babble about the Great Replacement Theory, which the Buffalo shooter also cited. 

Is it even worth pointing out that any rational reading of the major thrust of Great Replacement thinking would have nothing to do with killing random strangers at a grocery store? Especially African-Americans, who would theoretically be among those being replaced by the Tucker Carlson interpretation.

The "Great Replacement" will either happen over time or it won't. Time is the only thing that will determine whether this replacement comes to pass or not. The idea that any variation of the theory (and there are many) suggests anything actionable here and now is just not paying attention to the centuries that will have to pass before we will see if anyone has been greatly replaced--which is why Carlson's discussion of it is so pointless (and/or cynical) to begin with! 

Whether it is inspiring you to lead a voter registration drive or kill random strangers, you clearly didn't understand that this theory will play out over numerous generations and is not encompassed in any single act (positive or negative). And citing a great replacement in regards to any particular action just shows that you didn't understand it.

While Newsweek wants you to believe that not mentioning the Azov Battalion, though shrouding himself in the exact same imagery, does not link the white supremacist shooter in Buffalo with white supremacists in Ukraine, NPR wants you to believe that because the Buffalo shooter refers to a similar sort of theory as Tucker Carlson (though he doesn't seem to share the same interpretation) is an obvious connection between the two, though he never mentions Carlson either.

If you think Tucker Carlson is responsible for the shooting in Buffalo, then you must repudiate the $40billion that the Congress has pledged to known white supremacists in Ukraine. 

To wrap up, let's do a little thought experiment here: 

If I wear a Led Zeppelin t-shirt and some dude I never met in Japan wears a Led Zeppelin t-shirt, one could easily say that we have something of a cultural connection even if neither of us knows anything about each other. 

On the other hand, if I read, say, Catch-22 and that same guy in Japan read Catch-22. we may have nothing in common in our reactions. He may have hated it while I admired it or he may have loved it for a thousand different reasons that have nothing to do with what I loved about it. 

A book or a deeper concept is built to be interpreted in any number of different ways by the wide masses of people who come into contact with it. A t-shirt, on the other hand, or a single symbol, is meant to be basic, to be a quick identifier that people can recognize across oceans. 

Christians all over the world, for example, wear crosses to signify a love of Jesus--indeed, the signification for others is the whole point of wearing the cross--when, in fact, their actual worship techniques may be wildly different. Like a Southern Baptist at a St. Patrick's Day parade, there are a multitude of varieties of Christian experience. But the cross is universal to all of them. 

I'm not saying that kid in Buffalo was a member of the Azov Battalion (in fact, I suspect he wasn't), but whatever drove him to flash that symbol is surely the same thing that drove the Azov to don it on their gear. On the other hand, if this kid's concept of "Great Replacement" came from 4Chan (yeah, I'm not linking to that, you can find that shit on your own), then there is no reason at all to think that has anything to do with Tucker Carlson, even when he uses similar language. (**)

If Tucker Carlson can be said to have anything "to do with" the Buffalo shooter, then it isn't "misleading" to say that there are Nazis in the Azov Battalion. But, then again, I don't work in the American media, I'm just stuck reading it. 

The only thing getting replaced in America is logic. It used to come in handy but that phase seems to have moved on. 

(*) Though reporting on Nazis in Ukraine used to be pretty ordinary before the great misinformation crisis of the Biden years: BBC in 2014 (twice) and 2015. And The Guardian in 2017. Then the BBC again in 2018. And Time Magazine in 2019. 

(**) Also, just for fun, I'll go ahead and point out something that obviously neither Democrats nor Republicans have realized yet: Hispanics coming into the USA from the South (presumably the folks Carlson sees as the great replacers) are much more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. To grossly generalize, these people (if/when they arrive) are going to want to make money, dress their children modestly but nice, and on the weekends they're gonna go to church and watch sports. 

Democrats are deluded if they think they're getting those votes (do you think they're coming here to get abortions?) and Republicans are just being stupid for castigating these people rather than recruiting them (they're coming to this country to save us from ourselves, you morons!). God, I hope these 'replacers' bring a respect for real journalism with them! 

Gun Control

Gunman kills 19 children and 2 teachers in an elementary school (three more children and one more teacher in the hospital). Schools are State property, State responsibility, how did armed agents of the State protect these in loco parentis children?

"Uvalde school police officer was first to engage shooter"

Governor Abbott: officers "saved lives". "....A brave consolidated resource officer that approached him, engaged him at that time...the subject was able to make it into the school." 

"Law enforcement's response to the Uvalde school shooting"

"The subject was able to engage with and get past three police officers...a border patrol unit ended up responding and killing the subject."

"Uvalde Council Member Says Police Arrived At School Faster Than Reported"

"We had to control the people from going in there. That's why you saw...the Police pushing the people back."

"Man who confronted Uvalde gunman moments before school shooting"

"If I would've had (my pistol), I could've laid him down."

If, though, this man had "laid him down", he would not have been credited with averting a tragedy because no one knew what the gunman was capable of. Indeed, this man may well have found himself in serious trouble--not with the Law, which I think would've been on his side--but who knows how social media would've reacted to this man's actions? When cops kill people--or in this case, stand around while children get murdered--they are considered brave. But if this citizen had stopped this tragedy from occurring, he likely would not have been celebrated and may well have been vilified. 

This is what "gun control" looks like:

It is armed agents of the State refusing to allow people to defend themselves. 

So much easier to blame a weapon or call it all "misinformation" than to notice that this act was perpetrated on State property protected by State law enforcement that did nothing to stop a guy carrying an AR-15. While carrying an AR-15 in the middle of a riot, Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked over and over again--by private citizens!--while this guy with an assault rifle openly walked into a school past multiple armed agents of the State. 

I have never in my life advocated for more armed agents of the State--and I sure as fuck ain't starting now! This is why people buy guns. 

And who finally subdued the shooter? The border patrol. Is the border patrol the "hero" you want to look up to? 

The "majority" wants to be heard, too: "They wrote it for everybody!"

Once again for my mantra: the gov't was here when you born, it will be here when you die, it doesn't know how to help you live your life and couldn't even if it wanted to. Relying on the State will be the death of us all. 

(EDIT)

Mea culpa. I was incorrect in saying that the gunman interacted with a security officer before entering the school building. In this video, a representative from the Texas Department of Public Safety gives a comprehensive explanation of what happened as the gunman was wandering around the school campus. He specifically mentions (around 9:30) that the gunman did not interact with any safety officers prior to entering the building (though he did fire at least two shots at the school before entering). 

In my defense, I was reacting to what had been reported by CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox News (and, of course, You Tube), among others. And, also: New York Times ("entered despite being confronted"), Reuters ("managed to evade a school police officer who approached him before running inside."), BBC ("A police officer who works at the school was also in the vicinity although there are conflicting accounts over whether Ramos and the officer exchanged fire."), USA Today ("At the school, the shooter first encountered school resource officers but made it inside the school through a back door, officials said."), Associated Press "Officials say he “encountered” a school district security officer outside the school, though there were conflicting reports from authorities on whether the men exchanged gunfire. "

I'm sure these purveyors of misinformation will be properly punished by the proper authorities.

Roe v Wade

Too early to tell, actually, but a leaked report suggests that the Supreme Court is about to overturn Roe v Wade and/or Planned Parenthood v Casey. I almost wrote a post last summer suggesting that I was ready for Roe v Wade to go, but it didn't feel necessary. Okay, well, now it is.

This is a good thing because, in the long run, abortion will actually be a legal regulated perfectly ordinary consumer good rather than just a political football for the Partisans to manipulate. Indeed, getting rid of Roe v Wade should be the final nail in the coffin of our current two-party system. 

The reason modern Democrats are what they are is because of Roe v Wade; to a lesser extent, the reason the Republican Party is what it is is because of the political target that abortion offers. For both parties abortion is the cornerstone of their identity, their rhetoric and (most importantly) their fund-raising. Kicking abortion back to the States will create a bunch of places where abortion becomes legal so quickly that it no longer remains a partisan issue. And other places where it is such a losing fight that the political will will necessarily move on to other topics. In short, abortion will no longer be the cornerstone for either the Republicans or the Democrats (*). 

For example, will Republicans fight legalized abortion in California? Not for long. Why would they bother? It is guaranteed to be a losing issue and unlike the Democrats, the Republicans aren't going to spend their time on that level of pointless political theater. The Republicans used to rage against Social Security but by 1950 or so, they gave up. No one on the Right complains about Social Security any more (**) and abortion, too, may play as a down home talking point in a handful of places but it'll never be mentioned in others. 

On the other other hand, will the Democrats fight illegal abortion in, say, Idaho? Yes, because they live for losing issues and because, for now, there's so much essence built up on the Left around abortion (and Leftists are addicted to Identity). Over time, even those states will allow abortion because eventually it won't make much sense to not allow the same services that other states provide. End result: abortion will be legal in every state and no one will even think about it or care. Now that might take 100 years but even those places will lose their resolve to fight modernity. As it becomes less of a cultural flashpoint, no one will remember what they love/hate about abortion and it will just become another storefront in the strip mall. 

Abortion is absolutely and completely the province of the Partisans, not the People. By striking down Roe v Wade the Supreme Court has removed the duct tape holding this issue together and each of the 50 states will have to come to their own conclusions. The Blue states will legalize it and never look back; the Red states will criminalize it but over time will eventually catch up to the other states. The only way to make abortion perfectly legal is to get rid of Roe v Wade.  

Oh, well, the next 2-4 years or so will be an absolute political mosh pit as both the parties dig in to fight 50 fights rather than pretending to fight one (this also coincides with the continuing decay of the mainstream media and the steady decline of the Baby Boomers). But once the dust clears, abortion will be legal and we'll never have to talk about it again. And both the parties will be transformed, if not completely destroyed. 

I really never thought the Supreme Court had the balls or the wisdom to make this move. I thought the Court (especially under Roberts) would go along to get along and keep the accepted practice rather than actually force our political system to clean up the mess the Partisans have made. The Partisans have feasted for decades on this 50/50 issue and now that is going away. What will be the new talking points? What will be the cornerstone of the fund raisers? It'll be abortion more than ever for the next few years but after that....who knows?

The People will finally get to decide what they want. The Blue State People will undoubtedly choose legal abortion right away; the Red State People will take longer, but they will choose legal abortion, too, over time. In the end, abortion will be legal and we'll look back on the Roe v Wade period as the decades when the political parties held the nation hostage. 

The Supreme Court has done the right thing here: they have allowed abortion to be legal rather than just a tool for the Partisans to manipulate the People. I'm kinda shocked they had the good sense to do this. knowing full well that in the short term it will lead to chaos. USA is a place of permanent chaos, we should not be worried--hell, we were going to obsess over something stupid for the next 2-4 years anyway, might as well get this abortion thing over with. Finally, the People have the ability to rise up and reject the Democrats and the Republicans and we can create a new world of political coalition for the 21st century--the 19th century is finally over! (***)

I've thought (for 20 years at least) that the only thing in the political mainstream that would look exactly the same for the rest of my lifetime would be abortion. Why? Because under Roe v Wade it was exactly where both parties wanted it to be: legal but precarious, available but something you needed to worry about, something you have but something you could lose (or take away), a coinflip forever suspended in the air (the greatest hypnotic device available to the Partisans). The Supreme Court has removed that now, which will force both parties to become something new. And abortion will be just another consumer good rather than a weapon of worry. 

Politicians for years have been warning against "forever wars". Well, thanks to the Supreme Court the greatest American "forever war" of all is heading into the final showdown. And we have nothing to lose but our partisan chains. 

(*) Don't get me wrong: this will take a while. The next 2 years or so will be as hyperbolic as American politics has even been--yipes! But it will subside and as it does, I would love to think the People will recognize that political parties don't do anything they need done anymore. 

(**) Though that could come back. Social Security makes rich people richer and poor people poorer. It punishes people for being dumb enough to get a job. Rather than creating savings, it robs the working class of savings and gives the gov't virtually unlimited ill-begotten spending on the backs of American productivity. It is the worst thing that has ever happened to the working class of America since slavery. The only reason Republicans gave up fighting it is they finally realized that they were all wealthier because of Social Security--and it was Democrat voters that lost out the most. Democrats have been raping the American worker's paycheck for decades now and telling him that the money is being saved just for him...smh....unbelievable how the Liberals honestly see themselves as kindly and helpful when they've been perpetuating fraud like this on the most vulnerable people in our society. And getting away with it! Getting rewarded for it!

We'll see, though, how the theft mechanism of Social Security meshes with the digital world, where people--even working people that have hitherto been hypnotized by Democrat bullshit--can instantly see how much money they've made, lost and had taken from them. When the People finally take control of their lives--and their capital! Their labor!--they'll realize the Democrats are a bunch of shakedown artists and that the Republicans are their hapless dupes. 

(***) I would contend that the modern political parties go back to the election of 1896 (McKinley over Williams Jennings Bryan). From 1897 to 1933, the Republicans held the White House for all but 8 years (1913-1921). From 1933 to 1969 the Democrats held the White House for all but 8 years (1953-1961). From 1969 to 2009 the Republicans held the White House for all but 12 years (1977-1981, 1993-2001). Woodrow Wilson (Dem), Dwight Eisenhower (Rep), Bill Clinton (Dem) were uniquely popular personalities whose proteges could not win election; Jimmy Carter (Dem) is an example of how badly Watergate shattered the Republicans and how unattractive the job of the Presidency was in 1976--Carter was a fluke who was merely biding time for Ronald Reagan to regain the necessary support. 

Obama (the likable) and Trump (the unlikable) showed the system was out of touch with our new media structure. All we can accommodate now is beloved media stars (would you be shocked if the 2028 election is btw Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow?) because "controlling the narrative" is a 24/7 job that no on can do effectively and while the Media effortlessly gives us new stars, it is harder than ever to be popular enough to create the kind of coalition needed to be POTUS. For better or worse, we have finally severed the connection between the Parties and the Media--though it will still spark off something awful for the rest of the decade. Do you think either Party is capable of dominating the White House for several decades any more? I don't. The parties are collapsing because Roe v Wade was the last thing making either party relevant. 

Now we can create anew. The Parties are dead. Ideally the Age of the Individual is finally here with the necessary technology capable of ensuring that all people have the best access to education, information, finance and professional opportunity without having to kowtow to pointless social conventions, bogus financial management or gov't interference. It is the social conventions that are shattering, the chrysalis is opening....are we gonna be a butterfly or just a dead caterpillar?