Pinned Tweet
The SubNarrative exists for people who prefer to cut through the pre-filtered, pre-approved, and pre-concluded cultural commentary to do their own thinking. Films, books, ideas — let’s have a look at their ideological machinery.
Disappointing debate.
Andrew Wilson didn't know his (?) objective, so Candace never had a clear target to argue against. After they bickered back and forth on various points, some pertinent and some tangential, Candace was the obvious winner for sheer consistency
What if the mantra "America must not live under a Deep State" were enforced as hard as "Iran must not get a nuclear weapon"?
I really like it when non-horror movies incorporate horror elements in a seamless way. Some of my favorites are:
Cobra (1986)
Se7en (1995)
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992)
Prisoners (2013)
Black Swan (2010)
"Stop whining about overpriced burritos" is the new "Are you really still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?"
So, requiring ID to buy food in a grocery store to make sure only NY residents can take advantage of price-fixing is awesome and crucial!
Requiring ID to vote is evil and vicious discrimination
Got it.
A Duel of Studies is a waste of time, every time.
CNN’s Dana Bash: “I also don't want to use this interview to allow you to say things that aren't entirely true. It is also factually true that the COVID vaccine worked. The COVID vaccine prevented deaths. There is data, upon data, upon data.”
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “You think the COVID vaccine protected children?”
Dana Bash: “I have talked to scientists and doctors…”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “Can you show me one study that shows that children were protected by the COVID vaccine?”
“That that vaccine did more good than harm to children? Can you show me one study that shows that?”
Dana Bash: “There have been studies that show that, because of vaccine disinformation, there could have been 100K to 200K in the U.S. saved But because people didn't get the vaccine, that's why.
Robert F. Kennedy: “You are saying nonsense. You are saying something that you cannot show me a single study.”
Dana Bash: “Excuse me! Excuse me!”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “Cite me the study that you’re talking about. You said you’ve seen studies. Cite me the study.”
Dana Bash: *Can’t cite the study*
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “You're talking nonsense. You're making assertions you can't support, and then when I call you on them, you're telling me I'm arguing with you.”
Kennedy gave a MASTERCLASS on how to handle FAKE NEWS CNN.
Amazing piece on a crucial issue.
Especially excellent points on the gun as an equalizer that ended the supremacy of the physically superior, and that being armed puts you in the position of a grown-up, which for many people is a fate worse than death.
The gun is the most misunderstood object in Western civilization. Not a weapon. A technology. The technology that made the idea of equality physically real.
1. The longbow democratized warfare – a peasant could kill a knight with a stick and a string, and Agincourt proved it. The gun completed the process. The armored warrior class whose claim to social dominance rested on physical superiority became obsolete. The aristocratic monopoly on violence ended not with a philosophy but with a mechanism. The gun is the physical enforcement of the idea that all men are created equal. Which is why the American founders put it in the second amendment – not as an afterthought, but as the guarantee of everything else.
2. The Roman citizen had the right to bear arms. The Greek citizen had it. The English yeoman had it. The Swiss canton built its entire civilization on it. The disarming of the population has always been, in every civilization, in every century, the first act of the government that intends to stop being answerable to that population. Show me a disarmed population and I will show you a population that lost something else shortly after.
3. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is not about sport. It is about the relationship between the armed citizen and the state – the explicit constitutional acknowledgment that the citizen’s right to defend himself, his family, and his civilization against any threat, including the government itself, is not granted by the state and cannot be revoked by it. Power flows upward from the armed citizen, not downward from the armed state.
4. The gun defends the family. The woman alone with her children. The farmer on the edge of civilization. The shopkeeper in the neighborhood the police no longer patrol. The gun is the equalizer – the technology that makes the physical difference between a large man and a small woman irrelevant. Every argument for disarmament is, at its core, an argument that the state will protect you better than you can protect yourself. The evidence for this proposition is not encouraging.
5. In Europe, the disarmament is now nearly complete – and it happened precisely as the state’s ability and willingness to protect its citizens began to decline. The timing is not coincidental. A population that cannot defend itself must trust the state to defend it – which is a population that cannot effectively question whether the state is doing so. The dependency is the design.
6. The gun is a civilizational technology in the deepest sense: it requires responsibility, judgment, and the willingness to accept the consequences of your decisions. You cannot outsource it. You cannot have a committee fire it. It is the most anti-bureaucratic object ever invented – a direct, personal, consequential instrument that puts the full weight of the decision on the individual holding it. Which is precisely why the administrative state finds it intolerable. Not because it is dangerous. Because it is sovereign.
7. The family that can defend itself does not depend on the state for its most fundamental security. The civilization that can defend itself has not yet outsourced its survival to an institution that will negotiate the terms of that survival on its own behalf. The gun determines who controls violence – and therefore who controls everything that violence can threaten. Which is everything. The Sobieski who rode down the hill had a sword and sixty thousand horsemen. The equivalent today is the armed citizen who understands what he is defending and why. Every civilization that forgot this discovered it the hard way. The ones that remembered it are still here.
There is a great disturbance in The Force.
US politics are being fraudulently framed into a catastrophic false dichotomy:
Warmongering neo-conservatism vs. plunderous democratic socialism
The US GOP managed to go from resounding victory to making democratic socialism sound legitimate in only a year and a half.
Now THAT'S some movin' and shakin'!
I just recently realized that Pulp Fiction's Butch Coolidge chapter is a straight-ahead, by the numbers noir plot until it...
takes an unexpected turn to the gimp basement.
The most valid and reasonable counterargument I've heard against a stateless society is that another state might form, followed by the non-disprovable counterfactual "and it could be even worse!".
Let's all think about that.
"Winning" debates is not conclusive proof that the truth is on your side, but refusing to debate is a pretty solid indicator that it isn't.
🤫 Some insights aren't supposed to be said out loud, let alone put on a T shirt.
This quoted post is unavailable.
It seems to me that "suicidal empathy" is a matter of kind, not degree.
It's not an excess of empathy, but a counterfeit empathy, devoid of rational judgement or ethical boundaries.
A great many economic fallacies are built on idiotic contradictory premises like this:
Scarcity is a false corporate construct. There's enough of everything for everyone, but we need to ration A/C in a heat wave because there's not enough state-managed energy to go around.
JD Vance recently said the economy should go more in an Alexander Hamilton direction, than a Milton Friedman one. What a horror show.
Want to know the virtues of Hamilton? Instead of the musical, watch the debate between Tom Woods and Michael Malice on his historical influence.






