Lately it seems like we’re living in a Twilight Zone episode. In fact, I notice among the loudest of us, there’s an idea that if we’re not living in one yet, something’s wrong, and we have to get started on it a.s.a.p.

Let’s see…have I got this right? We had

1. Those dirty rotten unvax people are keeping us from reaching herd immunity; but then it emerged natural immunity was as effective as vaccine-driven immunity. Fauci The Great just wasn’t a fan of it, so after we admitted he wasn’t being straight with us it was

2. Those dirty rotten unvax people are unwittingly using their bodies as petri dishes to make new variants of the virus, like Delta for example; but then it emerged that a lot of us were still testing negative for the virus and antibodies as well, meaning we hadn’t contracted it; so then there was

3. Those dirty rotten unvax people are shedding the virus; but then it emerged that vaxxed people were shedding it too, so then we had

4. Those dirty rotten unvax people are shedding the virus more often and faster than the vax people; but then it emerged that that wasn’t true, so then we had

5. Those dirty rotten unvax people are filling up our hospitals, and all the deaths are unvax people; but then it emerged that a) When you’re dead, you’re no longer filling up a hospital and b) here, there and elsewhere there are some deaths from COVID among vaxxed people, our experts had just been covering them up; so then we had

6. Those dirty rotten unvax people are getting sicker than vaxxed people when & if they get the ‘Vid! Well yes, that’s true; that’s the whole point of having a vaccine. It gives your body a leg-up on forming the necessary resistance to fend off the virus, should you ever be infected with it. The problem is, that substantiates “I wouldn’t be doing it this way if I were them.” It doesn’t substantiate “They’re hurting me.” You can’t have a good witch hunt without they’re-hurting-me.

As these arguments have failed, one after another, like tumbling dominoes; those who rely on them to do their witch-hunting have slipped easily from one to another, as if it’s expected at a certain time, like changing underwear. Being right is fun, being wrong is not-so-fun. So they haven’t noticed the ground shifting beneath their feet. “What exactly are the unvaxxed doing to hurt you?” is a question that only burbles up to the surface, every now and then. It’s guaranteed not to happen if you never allow the target of your ire to say anything in response, or if you don’t listen. The “Why Aren’t You Vaccinated?” Karen-types are often seen falling short at one of those, or the other. So they don’t notice that while their lecture stays consistent, the support for it has to swivel around, changing over time. The overarching objective that endures, is to blame the right people for…whatever. To live in this pretend world of they’re-hurting-me.

Vax-tivists say they don’t owe anything to unvax people. That’s not wrong. In fact, that’s the problem. Unvax people don’t disagree. You have to have disagreement over something to have conflict, and you have to have conflict in order to achieve the true goal here: Making the designated group the target of widespread public hatred, preferably as the scapegoat for the misery China has brought down on us all.

What China has accomplished here is truly remarkable. They, the communists, have managed to acquire leverage over us, to tell us what to think by telling us what not to think. But our own government, sprawling out of control or any sensible restraint, still lacks the power to tell us what not to think. For that, you need large, corporate entities. We don’t think the virus came from China, because Disney won’t let us think the virus came from China. And who owns Disney? Three guesses, and the first two don’t count. Disney, in turn, owns just about everything. Don’t piss off The Mouse!

And because we aren’t allowed to blame China, when the evidence doesn’t point anywhere else, we fall for these smoke-and-mirror parlor tricks. We end up living on Maple Street, blaming each other.

Like a bunch of filthy rats, eating each other. Like communists.

The China virus has communists acting just like capitalists, and us capitalists acting just like communists.

Everybody arguing likes to think they’re arguing rationally with facts, logic and reason, and it’s the other guy getting hoodwinked by his hysteria and his emotions. Everybody gets more excited about it when we’re arguing about medicine, and this is understandable. We all understand how precious health is and what a life-changing event it would be if health were to go away so that we can’t get it back again.

Well, here’s something else people need to understand:

“Just wait ’til” arguments are emotion, not reason.

This may not be evident to the people who need to know; the people who go around using them, with varying degrees of frequency. It is abundantly apparent to those of us who have been continually on the receiving end of them for the last sixteen to nineteen months. “Just wait ’til you catch the ‘vid.” “Just wait ’til you’re on a ventilator.” “Just wait ’til you suffer permanent lung or organ damage.” “Just wait ’til it’s your family members who have it, and they caught it from you.”

These are not rational arguments. They feel like they are, to the person who is making them. That’s the problem. Feel.

“Future events will prove me right” is something you say when all other maneuvers have failed. If all other maneuvers have failed, there’s a reason why. Also, it is a tacit admission that present events, and past events, have not provided foundation for what you’re saying. By now, we have a certain depth of history behind a viral infection that, last year, was truly novel. If an argument is strong, it is reasonable to expect some past events should provide support for it, so there’s no reason to go delving into the future unless your argument is weak.

In addition to all that, it’s a turn-off when someone who’s trying to convince you to do something, is looking forward to your death or serious injury. It doesn’t close the sale. It doesn’t inspire reasonable, normal people to do what the other fellow wants them to do.

The 2020 Election turned into a cheat, and the cheat turned into a battle of wills. My side lost the battle of wills. And then the people who won it used the Capitol Penetration on January 6, and other things, to try to make their victory more decisive, and — let’s all just come out and admit it — accumulate for themselves a level of influence over things elevated as far as possible, above what was merited by their “victory.”

Now we know the whole thing was a mistake. So people like me are looking around and wondering…alright, is this the part where I keep my mouth shut and allow others to gradually come to the conclusion we were right all along, on their own? Or do we go with the “Nobody else will toot my horn for me, so here I go?” Past history would tend to suggest they need the horn tooted. They don’t learn on their own.

I’m settling for a combination of both. And I’m monitoring, recording and taking notes. One liberal expresses disappointment in Placeholder Joe’s handling of Afghanistan but stops short of admitting to a mistake. Another wants to talk about Iraq and how she knew that was the wrong thing to do…I guess trying to shoehorn in a one-for-two for herself before admitting to any error…

You really can’t get any more bait-and-switchy than this, can you? I mean, can you? The booby prize for getting rid of Trump and replacing him with the kindly old Grandpa was prestige on the world stage, a steady hand on the tiller of the ship of state, dignity, respect, cogent analysis of whatever situation came along, even-tempered leadership…you know, “Hooray the adults are in charge again” stuff. How’d that go?

They want to look like they don’t make mistakes.

What they look like, to me, are people who can’t learn from mistakes. That’s far worse than making mistakes, assuming that on those occasions you make them, you can admit you made them and learn to, as the liberals like to say, “do better.”

I guess it’s up to the rest of us to learn it’s a mistake to do anything their way. But this is a realization that I’d made back in…oh, around the late 1970’s. But now I understand that includes running elections. There’s just no getting around it. Liberals will not admit to their mistakes, so the rest of us are going ot have to “admit” them on their behalf.

What else are we to learn from this?

After we’re done beating up on the liberals for caring more about the appearance of WinningTheArgument than about actually being right, and in so doing hurting others, I think we have to be fair and admit this is essentially what politics is, and on all sides. Those who do it for a living say to all the rest of us, “We can see what’s distressing you, and the cure for the problem is to vote for my guy.” It’s salesmanship 101: The solution to my problems has something to do with a solution to your problems. This may or may not be true, but validating it is entirely up to the buyer. When you’re the buyer, and you do a bad job of this, you get taken and at some point you have to admit you sucked in your execution of this very critical task. It’s a bitter pill to swallow. This one is more bitter and quite a bit bigger than most other such pills, because this is a situation where the delivery was the photo-negative opposite of what was promised, and the consequences are disastrous.

The liberals shoved us out of the way and seized the controls. Now it’s glaringly apparent to everyone paying attention — us, them, our friends, our foes, their friends, their foes — everyone involved would have been a lot better off if they’d just jammed their hands in their pockets and kept them there. There’s no one they can blame for this. It’s all on them, and they know it.

But we can’t rely on them to learn from the mistake, and avoid doing it again. We just can’t. If they had what it took, they wouldn’t be liberals.

Part of the reason we’re divided in 2021, in politics, in both intensity and frequency, is that for approximately half a century there has been this drive to avoid making each other feel bad.

You say: Hold up there Freeberg. How can this political division, which makes people feel bad, be the result of some effort to avoid making each other feel bad? That’s kind of like Superman being hurt by rocks from his home world, isn’t it? Makes no sense! In order for me to explain this I have to simplify things, a lot. It is necessary to remove the emotional attachments. So let’s say we’re discussing whether or not water is wet.

All the Sesame-Street pandering to feelings has resulted in a new deliberative tool having been forged, a rhetorical device of: “If you mention that water is wet you make me feel bad.” Note — the people on the other side wouldn’t have to use this device. You can easily prove water is wet, so it wouldn’t make any sense to go wading (ha!) into an argument wielding a rhetorical device of “You make me feel bad if you say water is *not* wet.” It would be needlessly convoluted, time consuming and wasteful. So this new device is available only for those who assert the weaker positions. But since 1960 or so, it is available.

Black people owned slaves too. You make me feel bad!

The virus really did come from China. You make me feel bad!

Gay married couples have fights & divorces too. Feel bad!

Here’s a rich guy who didn’t inherit anything. Down-tingles!!

Women on average can’t lift as much. Triggered!!

Aside from furnishing this new rhetorical tool to people who have taken the wrong position on something, and know they’ve taken the wrong position, this divides us in other ways. It splinters us. Think of all the ways you can respond to this situation, of “I’m going to feel bad if you mention water is wet.”

Normal people will respond with: Well then you know what? Let’s just avoid the subject entirely. That’s the default response from anyone who is decent. And, uh, maybe their husbands.

Then you have dickheads like me. No, we can avoid talking about it if we want, but water is wet and nothing we say, or refuse to say, is ever going to change that.

And then you have bullies, which people like me are tempted to be, and we try not to cross that line…we get no credit for it, no one knows how hard we try not to be the asshole who says: “I’m going to stress the wetness of water again and again and again until that whelp is lying on the floor in a fetal position, quivering and pissing himself.” Those types are certainly out there. The temptation is out there. That’s what polarizes us.

There are also some real assholes on the other side. The kind that grew up crying whenever mommy was in earshot, and stopped when she left the room. “I know water is really wet, but if I act like I’m triggered whenever anyone mentions it, I get to start fights and make it look like it’s the other guy’s fault.” These crybabies really don’t care if water is wet or not wet. They thrive on the thrill of breaking things and making it look like the other guy did it. They’re like porch pirates who don’t know what’s in the box they’re stealing. It’s the thrill they get from doing something they know is wrong.

Deep down we all know what’s true. We don’t need me to actually say it. But…here I go.

It was a mistake to get feelings involved in these discussions in the first place. If water is wet, it doesn’t matter who’s throwing a temper tantrum over it. It’s still wet.

Some 2,500 years ago, the ancient Greeks began to debate and inspect the concept of what’s true, and what truth is. We’re behind where they were 25 centuries ago, because of our…feelings, nothing more than feelings, whoa oh oh feelings…

The public at large is in a state of agitation and distress because democrats and liberals have taken control of the situation with the China Virus, and they have done nothing about it apart from shaming, censoring and criminalizing anyone who mentions it’s a China Virus.

Their message to the public is one of “Don’t you worry, we’re going to kick COVID’s butt” and the public’s response is “That’s why we’re worried.” Remember, we’re still waiting for this crew to kick Climate Change‘s butt, and poverty‘s butt, and illiteracy‘s butt, and bigotry‘s butt, and crime in inner cities‘ butt, and stagnant wages & high cost of living‘s butts, and and and and………

All they have done with these things amounts to creating campaign issues out of them. And then fix exactly nothing because if they did, the campaign tools and weapons would go away. They’d lose their ability to do things they couldn’t do before. They know this, everybody else knows they know it, they know everybody else knows, we know they know we know they know…

We have a good understanding here, whether we’re allowed or motivated, to talk about it, or not. Issue after issue after issue, democrats make a problem, then they campaign on it, win, and rather than fix the problem, make it worse. They exacerbate it, intensify it, pull more people into it to expand it in both breadth and depth. Then they run on it again, win again, lather rinse & repeat…

Why not just admit to what’s obvious? Since China infected us with a deadly virus, the democrat party has seen the list of issues subject to this cycle, increase by one item. Let’s be honest, that is what’s changed.

The public is right to be agitated.

A number of events have me thinking about people and what makes them tick. And, occasionally, collide.

When you strip away the good manners, and all the other devices that conceal motivations, you see the behavior of the individual is more or less dictated by answers to just one from among a very few questions. I reduce these to just three:

1. How do I make the gadget work?

2. What are people going to say/think/feel about me?

3. How does it make me feel?

If it isn’t a singularity, it becomes one in short order; whoever finds himself obsessing over a plurality of these, with the passage of just one or two challenges, will subjugate all others in favor of just one. And after this happens a few times, the personality crystalizes. The individual starts to favor the same one out of the above three, consistently, all the way up to the dirt nap.

And so, whether or not we like it, we have our taxonomy. We have our tribes. And we’re tempted toward tribal thinking.

When people congregate, they get along much better if all in attendance are motivated (chiefly) by one of these. When the congregation straddles a line between two or more of these, there are obstacles. An obstacle is not an impossibility. People can still get along with each other, and with a bit of effort, start to see the other’s point of view. But it takes substantially more effort if the two of you are motivated by different things.

We are deep into an odd-numbered year, weary with the China Virus mess, struggling to get along in life, many of us afflicted with health problems resulting from medical neglect, or acquainted with a friend or relative who is so afflicted.

So few among us have the capacity or spare bandwidth to deal with the awful truth, but here it is: Biden/Harris got 81 million votes, or democrats are stealing our elections. And it is virtually impossible for Biden/Harris to have received that many votes. Also, if the democrats did steal the last election, it is virtually impossible for them to have been doing it for the first time.

There is a real possibility, and some would credibly assert a likelihood, that democrats haven’t legitimately won a national election since Bill Clinton in 1992 (a three-way, Taft/Roosevelt/Wilson type of fluke).

The most ominous thing about this is the possibility, by no means remote, that very soon after people see posts like this on social media, those posts will be scrubbed. There’s this mindset out there that anything that calls election results into question, must be “misinformation,” not because the question would be illegitimate but rather because it might put a damper on the public’s enthusiasm or drive to vote the next time. And so “admins” have to “combat” this “misinformation” by censoring any such questions, along with any insinuations or observations that might inspire such questions. This opens up a brand new chapter, not unprecedented but quite different from what came immediately before, in which people are responsible for what other people do, or don’t do…but it would seem no one person is responsible for his or her own actions. Also, that it’s “misinformation” to point out “Hey, we don’t really know X for sure” — when we don’t.

When we know something is *not* so, there’s no need to censor it. There’s no need to censor phlogiston theory. There’s no need to censor “That wrestling match was totally legitimate.” There’s no need to censor “The moon is made of cheese.” The need for censorship exists when the message is provably true, or open to question with an outright refutation being impossible. That is the situation that exists with these doubts against the Biden/Harris “victory” of 2020.

Liberals go through the motions of coming up with brand new ideas, and then the conservatives complain about them. High up on the list of these complaints the conservatives have about the liberal idea, is the observation that the idea is anything but new.

Liberals then complain about the conservatives. They ascribe all sorts of personal defects to the conservatives that are rather silly, for if they apply at all, a search for an enthused self-identifying liberal who shares such defects in equal measure, is a brief search. High up on the list of these complaints the liberals have about conservatives that apply with equal legitimacy to liberals, is the complaint that conservatives do a lot of complaining. But that one, at least, has the virtue of being true.

Moderates complain that both conservatives and liberals are enthused and entrenched, beyond what circumstances would legitimately permit, into their respective ideologies. If only conservatives would forget about being conservative, and liberals forget about being liberal, and if each of those two sides would stop complaining about the other, we could get things done.

Where the conservatives and liberals overlap, you have the prime, vital and unifying characteristic of the moderate. “If only everybody else would stop complaining about anything, and be more like me, we could all get things done.”

You allow all of them to have their say and enjoy their influence, put ’em in a big bag, shake it up, hold your “free and fair” election…and evidently, what you get is the Biden administration.

Hmmm…what’s the takeaway?

1. Sliming other people because they “complain” is useless. It is silly, in no small part because it is, in & of itself, complaining; therefore it is the act of assuming the form and shape of the target of one’s loathing.

2. Therefore, making a villain out of everybody who complains, is a useless exercise.

3. Pursuing it to its logical end, we construct, and then must endure the consequences of, substandard results. People who think shushing up complaints is apt to give us good things, are just saying what sounds good without thinking it over, failing to pay attention, or engaged in some combination of those two things.

4. Nobody’s really above it. There may be some people who abstain from it entirely, either by way of self-restraint or a mental handicap that denies them the fundamentals of complaining; but they’re not above it, they’re beneath it.

5. Most importantly, our ability to discuss these issues comes from our empowerment to vote. And that comes from one or several complaints someone had. We owe what we have to the complainers. It comes under “Be careful what you wish for”; without those who complained in years past, you wouldn’t have anyone complaining in the here & now. They wouldn’t be allowed to, and they wouldn’t dare. Think a few more times on whether you really want to live in such a world.

Rather than looking back on history to when society at large blamed Jews, poor people, rich people, blacks, whites, gays, witches, straights, women, men, etc….let’s remove the emotionalism from it and just call the scapegoated group A. The history of human beings is much easier to understand, when you look for the simpler patterns, because when you review it in this sort of context you find the patterns. And once you find them you see they’re not complicated. So the era is unspecified, but it was cool to blame A. Let’s leave the problems unspecified too. Cows gave spoiled milk, real estate & gasoline were expensive, unemployment was sky-high…whatever…everybody blamed A because it was cool to blame A.

The pattern you’re going to see as you read up on history is that an effort arose to defrock A of any influence. Lots of people from all sorts of different walks of life participated in it, and they believed in it passionately, so the effort was both intense and broad. There was little resistance against this. Resistance would have been punished, with a sneering attitude of…so what, you’re with the A? And so members of Group A became pariahs. They may or may not have been driven underground or herded into boxcars, but the one consistent thing is that they weren’t allowed to have an effect on anything.

But humans are flawed. So no one did the logical thing of: Let’s monitor things for a year or two and see if they get better. Hold those in power to account.

Nope. What you’re going to find happened instead was, other people were left with the influence, but responsibility for results was not attached to this power, because the coolness-factor of blaming A for everything, remained. So those with power, did not labor under the heavy burden of improving things. They just continued to blame A. And they didn’t have to work too hard at it.

What happens when the people who have the power, don’t labor under the responsibility of making things better? Things don’t get better. When things don’t get better, they get worse.

And when people in power can direct the public’s agitation and blame-seeking as easily as you can direct the stream when you’re watering your lawn — you are going to find there was deterioration and things continued to get worse until there was a much more devastating crisis, like a Depression, or a war.

You’re also going to find that when there was a problem, but things got better, it wasn’t that easy for the powerful to direct this public blame like watering a lawn. You’re going to find that’s when the public had & used critical thinking skills, and said to the powerful “No thanks…we’ll figure out for ourselves why things are rancid, and we’ll put the blame where it makes sense.”

Right now we think we’re so hip and cool because society as a whole is blaming the unvaxxed, the whites, the males, the straights, the Trump supporters…all the people who have already been driven, with GREAT fanfare, from influence. Hooray! Yay for our side!! Yay!! But…why isn’t the pandemic over?

The truth is, the pandemic was over when the vaccines became widely available. Ever since then, if you’re really that worried about getting sick, you can just get the shot and then it’s the other guy’s problem. Just like locking up your car; the lock doesn’t have to be that good, the thieves will just meander onward to the next car that isn’t locked.

Since then, the “pandemic” has been a political thing. A blame game, an excuse to defrock those who have already lost influence, from influence. It’s an old game. People like to say Hitler was a bad guy, worst of the worst. It isn’t so common for anyone to put some quality thought into exploring why & how. Hitler had a lot of peculiar and unique strengths, but as far as running the country he was just another piece of crap bureaucrat who exploited the public’s suffering, to accumulate power for himself by blaming specified groups. It led to bad things and this is what makes him such a bad guy within the tapestry of history. But this particular aspect of him wasn’t, and isn’t, that unusual. Something like that is going to happen anytime the powerful who make the decisions tell the public “blame that group over there,” and the public responds with “Duh okay whatever you say boss derp derp derp.” Things aren’t going to get better.