Peasantry Are Irredeemably Ignorant & Root Causes

One egalitarian lie that I accidentally swallowed and have to fight against: the whole "salt of the earth" idea. Surely, given there's literally billions of the fuckers, some of these peasants have be worth listening to, right?

Haha, yeah no. 

All of them are clueless. "The “Great Awokening” has been traced to the early 2010s. Since there was no major law passed at the time that coincided with the shift"

lol

You can't engage intellectually with someone this dense; use force or leave them alone. I certainly keep forgetting. 

Go ahead. Email Hanania about how CIA propaganda was legalized domestically for 2013. I'll wait. 

Don't get fooled by the fact that [presumption of innocence] is necessary for murder trials. Presume guilt; presume they are forsaken until there's so much evidence you have to stop. Trust must be earned. Respect must be earned. It's really hard to be too judgmental; difficult to be too condemning. Hanania isn't contingently clueless, he is inherently clueless. He aspires to cluelessness and achieves his goal; if you try to stop him, he'll fight you.

"probably would get 90% support if you just showed it to people, right? It’s something like, you can’t discriminate just based on race, sex, color, national origin, right?"

"Gail: I would say more than 90%. I bet you get 95%. [laughter]"

In that case you don't need a law, now do you? This is a marginal issue at most. You don't need any enforcement. If a) everyone thinks 'discrimination' is bad and b) 'discrimination' is in fact bad, then it's going to disappear on its own, now isn't it?

You can just leave freedom of association alone, and it will sort itself out.
The fact they can pass the law proves they don't have to and shouldn't pass the law. It's self-refuting.

Luckily for ravenous, psychopathic politicians, Fascism is utopian. Wu wei is banned. They have to maim and cripple freedom of association, because 95% think 'discrimination' is bad.

"Luck," I call it, as if Fascism wasn't specifically chosen for its utopian character.

 

This ignorance fatally poisons his essay. He thinks if you revoke civil rights, it would help. 

Insert that meme with the three guys in a courtroom all 'secretly' pointing a gun at the head of the person in front of them. Once you've rolled the argument back once, maybe consider that you might have to roll it back further...

"All men are created equal." You have to revoke America per se. Even that isn't really enough; the Bill of Rights is, get this, based on the Bill of Rights. Which is based, in part, on the Magna Carta. 

What you have to revoke is Protagoras. 

You have to uproot the whole tree. 

Maybe once it's out of the ground you can cut it up and use some of the lumber as frames to support a new tree. The correct response to "Civilization!" has been "salvage operation" for thousands of years now. Since Socrates at the latest. "Cooperate with cooperators" isn't exactly rocket science. Three words does not a PhD dissertation make. Rather, "civilization" been a long-form proof that humans want to cheat Gnon, and Gnon catches them every time.

So, actually, no, you don't have to uproot the tree. The fundamental theorem of history is that history repeats. Humans will continue being basically evil. Your step 1 isn't to try to convince a bunch of demons to stop being deviant little shits; your step 1 is to secure yourself against the sewage tide.
They're dumb and clueless; evil is self-destructive. The security isn't hard.