An Hypothesis of Leftist Belief

Why do people on the left believe what they believe?

Bret Weinstein says that he believes communism stems from insurmountable bad luck.  And while there is some truth to this, it is not the primary cause.  Communism is primarily a function of envy.  And there is a class of people who stoke the envy, not for the good of society, certainly not the good of the working classes, but to accumulate power for themselves.

Has history not proven this time and again?  If this fact troubles you, just name one communist leader who lived a communist life?  Just one.

Weinstein goes on to argue that the best way to immunize people from communist impulses is to give people access to the market and the tools to compete in the market.

Excellent.  Left unsaid is that the left believes this can and should be done with some series of never-ending government programs.  They argue, who or what else is going to do it?  But the reality is that the best way to provide access to the market is to limit the burden of government on everyone:  Employer, employee, entrepreneur, investor, laborer, etc.

Further, Weinstein wants to hypothesize and test solutions to our various problems.  And that sounds great.  But who ends up controlling the process?  Again, the government.  And government is unwieldy and bureaucratic.  Hypothesize, test, fail, re-tool, try again differently.  This is not something government does.  It is not something government has ever done.  But you know who has always done this?  The free market.

One thing that pro-government types struggle with is the concept of incentives.  And without this understanding, government programs of any type, are doomed to fail.  Again, who gets this concept correct?  The free market.

When government is involved, they bring their bureaucracy and their group think and their politics and their power dynamics.  And their guns.  It is always worth remembering that everything the government does, and every policy that it enacts, is at the point of a gun.  Group think with guns.  That pretty much sums up every government ever.

But that is not the worst of it.  Leftist power players care very little about policy.  They only care about policy insofar as it helps them achieve and maintain their own power.  They certainly do not care about the long term effects and consequences of their policies.  So Weinstein's experimentation process is never actually started much less accomplished.  The left's so-called solutions are only proposed to win elections.  To the extent that anything ever gets done, there is zero attention to efficacy.  The whole thing is a sham.

But then it gets even worse.  Because all governments lie with impunity.  Either to further their political ends or to hide their corruption and/or failures.  Yet the left seems to believe that if they could just get their imagined version of an honest, good government, then everything will work as they envision it.  But this never happens; has never happened in the history of the world.  But next time, they assure us, they will get it right.  Just in time to carry out Weinstein's experiments.

So let's keep government in a small box, doing only the absolutely necessary.  Yes, I realize this ship has sailed.  But this should be our goal.

This is so obvious that it begs the question, why do leftists believe what leftists believe?  Well there are two kinds of leftists.  The small group I mentioned above who lust for power.  And the more common useful idiots, some driven by envy, some driven by other emotions, such as an overabundance of empathy, who buy all the bullshit sold by the power players.  Many of the useful idiots have turned away from faith in God and replaced it with faith in government.  And as with any religion, faith does not make it true.

I like Bret, I really do.  I have learned a great deal from him.  But I wonder what kind of leftist he is?

𓐵

Alphabet Rebellion

Odom:  There is a rising movement of regular gay people who are against all the nonsense

Back in January, I wrote about the gay show and how the time has come to take a considered look at the whole topic.  Well here is a gay man who agrees that the show is getting old.

I really appreciate Amir's honesty.  All the more so because of how rare it is in the alphabet community and among the left in general.

Gay fatigue is a real thing, and here I was thinking that it was just me.

In this video, Odom makes two important divisions.  Let me restate them here.  He does not make them in this order, but let me state them in a way that makes sense to me.  First, he divides the alphabet people between the LGB and the TQ+.  Then he further divides the LGB people between the normal everyday types and the gay show types.  These seem like fair divisions to me.

Now, I have no idea what percentage of alphabet people are normal gays.  And clearly, it is the gay show types that we all tend to notice.  How could we not?  Maybe the majority of gay people are normal and do not put on a show.  How would we know?

By the way, what is "normal" anyway?  Well normal people do not walk around shouting their sexuality so that everyone can see it.  That is not normal.

We are all sick to death of the show.
𓐵

Epistemic Humility on Display

Goliath expanded

It was Bret Weinstein, during the Covid response episode, who first introduced me to the contemporary metaphorical concept of Goliath.  It may be a metaphor, but it represents something real.  This is clearly true even if we cannot identify exactly what that something is.  Matthew 7:16 taught us to know a tree by its fruit.  Using this lesson, we may not know exactly what Goliath represents, but we can know its purpose by what it does.  The purpose of any system is what it does.  And today, I think we can broaden Matthew:  By its fruit, we know it exists.

There is much in this two part conversation that I disagree with; there is much more that I do agree with.  Plus, I also share many of Weinstein and Carlson's open questions.  In any case, if you want to be smarter about what is going on in the world today, have a listen.




𓐵

Grammar is a Signal

WSJ:  There's an inverse correlation between power and proper grammar

That's pretty much the long and the short of the whole article (archive).  But I would add that there is a correlation between proper grammar and respect.  So when did power come to mean a lack of respect?

I am a terrible self-editor, but I do make every effort to not make, and certainly not send, grammatical or spelling errors.  But according to The Wall Street Journal, in 2026, this makes me some kind of toady.

Have we become so blasé about written communications that we fail to comprehend that there is an etiquettical dimension to the process?  Or do we just no longer care?

I mean even if I am communicating with a subordinate, I will make every effort to write properly.  I might even make more of an effort, because I would not want them to think I am illiterate, right?  That would be shameful.  Or at least embarrassing.

Well...no.

The authors of this piece seem to be saying that we demonstrate our power by using bad grammar.  Or at the very least, power gives us permission to dispense with proper grammar and editing.  Personally, I think they have been reading way too much Foucault.

But this much is clearly true.  People today like to assume that whomever they are communicating with will not assume that they are illiterate.  The correspondent will simply assume that they are busy or blame the technology or whatever.  Or, they assume that the correspondent will simply believe that they just cannot be bothered.  So there is no embarrassment much less shame.

Is that the message that we want to send?  And if it is, what does that say about us?  Here's a question:  What would your grandmother have thought about your grandfather if his love letters were full of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes?  Maybe you would not be here.

No, consistently bad grammar and spelling is a signal.  He just cannot be bothered.  That's the signal.

Here's my question:  What else is he not bothered about?

If you believe that bad grammar signals something else; maybe it does.  It could represent any number of signals.  But all of them are bad.

And if etiquettical is not a word, I will be ashamed.

𓐵

McDonald's Update: Ice Cream Machines & Burgers

Low integrity management and low trust marketing

Let's update a post from three years ago, on McDonald's and the never-ending troubles they have with their Taylor ice cream machines.

So here I am on the other side of the world, in the Philippines.  And you often see Taylor ice cream machines here just as you do in all US McDonald's.  After that first post, I tend to notice these machines.  But yesterday I was in a Jollibee (the largest fast food chain in the country) and I noticed that they had removed their Taylor machine and replaced it with a Carpigiani, an Italian competitor.  Like the one in this photo.  Or see the actual machine, below.

So I asked the manager, Hey what's with the new machine and how long have you had it?  She said, Yeah, it's brand new, we've had it for two weeks.  Our Taylor machine was defective.  I said, Yeah, a lot of them are.

If you are wondering, machines from both companies sell for around $20,000 up to $60,0000 depending on model.  And that is before installation and setup fees, and ongoing maintenance costs. (Grok)

This was the same day that a video went viral of the McDonald's CEO, Chris Kempczinski, supposedly eating the company's newest "product," the Big Arch, with obvious distaste.  Yes, he referred to the burger as a product.  He originally posted the video in early February of this year.  Here is one reaction video:

Burger King also had a fun response.  As Lindey Glenn points out, it is practically guaranteed that Kempczinski does not eat McDonald's offerings.  Ever.  He's no Dave Thomas, or even Donald Trump.

By the way, I met Dave Thomas when I was in college; he always referred to Wendy's products as sandwiches, even the burgers.  Which I found a bit odd, but at least you never heard him refer to any of his burgers as a "product."  Kempczinski might as well be selling tube socks.

I have no doubt that Kempczinski is a smart guy.  But his inability to relate to McDonald's products, franchisees, and customers is concerning.  His unwillingness to correct the ice cream machine situation is disqualifying.  I do not believe this is gross incompetence; rather it appears to be gross misconduct.  Clearly he could solve the problem if he wanted.  But this is not an operational issue; it is an ethical problem.

Note, Dairy Queen also uses Taylor machines, though a different model, without issue.  Same for Wendy's, Burger King, and Chick-fil-A. (Grok)  Someone should insist on a remedy.

You gotta wonder how many Big Macs does the company have to sell in order to pay Kempczinski's daily tab at Michelin-starred brasseries?  McDonald's clearly hates their franchisees and their customers.  So the long history of questionable management continues.

Anyway, here's the Carpigiani machine I saw yesterday:



For reference, here is an older Taylor ice cream machine in a different Jollibee:

For those who do not know, Jollibee is primarily a chicken joint.  But they serve all of the fast food staples, like burgers, fries, and of course, soft serve ice cream.  And rice; nearly everything here comes with rice.  They also do a sweet spaghetti that is very popular with Filipinos.  In the US, where they have around eighty locations, they offer great looking chicken sandwiches.  But sadly, those are not available in the Philippines.

Update, 11 March 2026

Today, Lindey Glenn can explain Kempczinski's reaction to the new Big Arch.  My question is, if the burger is not ready for prime time, why did the CEO allow its market release?  Maybe it is gross incompetence after all.

𓐵

Again, The Experts Have Spoken

Like the Covid response and transgender mania, Tourette's Syndrome defies common sense

Tourettes activist John Davidson shouts n*gger and b*tch at Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo at the Bafta Awards in London. pic.twitter.com/mrS95IrW41

— Anthony Brian Logan (ABL) 🇺🇸 (@ANTHONYBLOGAN) February 23, 2026

I get the tics part of the syndrome.  We have all met people with tics of one kind or another.  And I can maybe understand, or at least tolerate, the verbal outbursts.  But it is the incendiary nature of these outbursts where I have to draw the line.  When two black men are on stage, a Tourette's sufferer shouts the n-word?  Why not pink elephant?  Or as one black commenter observed, "Why not shout Hallelujah?"  Indeed.

No, this is a bridge too far for me.

And yet every major medical organization supports the idea that this is involuntary.  And they have lined up in uniform to denounce those of us who question the narrative.  Just like they did with the Covid response.  Just like they did with gender confirming healthcare.  And for that matter, just like they did with lobotomies and then tonsillectomies.

We are told that this is a counter-intuitive medical condition and we should just accept the wisdom of the medical experts.

No sorry, I don't buy it.  Expert groupthink is a very real thing with a long and checkered history.

I have not always thought this way.  But today, in any conflict between so-called experts and common sense, I will choose my own common sense.  Every single time.

So what's the issue?

We are told that Tourette's Syndrome sufferers cannot suppress the use of obscene language at inappropriate times.  A condition called coprolalia.  Yet these same sufferers are able to suppress other inappropriate behaviors, say violence, crime, or reckless driving.  So it is only the obscene language that they cannot suppress.  But it seems to me that if these people have a problem with control of one inappropriate behavior, that this would manifest among other behaviors as well.

My theory, and that is all it is, is that they misbehave in this one area because they have been trained, first by their parents, and later by the medical establishment, that there are no consequences.  And they do not misbehave in other areas because they realize that there may very well be consequences of those actions.

Plus I find the use of the word suppress to be interesting.  Personally, I never have to suppress the use of the n-word.  The very idea of using it never occurs to me.  Just like acts of violence, reckless driving, other crime, or misbehavior.  I need not suppress these urges; I do not have them.  So what does it say about someone who needs to suppress bad behavior?  Really, I'm asking.

No, I view Tourette's as a factitious indulgence.  But I confess, I'm just a simple-minded coprolalia bigot.  No doubt the mental health community would dismiss my willful ignorance.  So be it.

This behavior is unacceptable for any occasion.  But I have to add that I have enjoyed both Jordan's and Lindo's work; they are both excellent at their craft.  And they did not deserve this disrespect at an awards ceremony.  Of course, to their credit, they may well be more forgiving than I am.

I had an interesting conversation with Grok on this topic.  It is rather long, but if you are interested in this topic and why it makes people uncomfortable, I think it is worth your attention.  The final three questions are most revealing.  Skip the rest if you like and read those.

𓐵

South Africa 2026

When I was coming of age, in the seventies and eighties, my parents taught me that the apartheid regime in South Africa was racist and evil.  When I went off to college in 1985, I found fellow students protesting the South African government and US investment in the country.  They set up encampments on the quad calling for the university to divest from this segregated country and its racist ruling white minority government.

I never joined the protests.  Not because I was unsympathetic to the cause, but because I saw the protests as less about the injustice in South Africa, and more about the protesters' need to protest.  And importantly, to be seen protesting.  If it had not been this issue, it would have been something else.  Anything else.  That was my immediate impression, and I still hold it to this day, forty years later.

And we all know the history.  Apartheid ended in South Africa in 1994.  And I bet most of those protestors never gave the country another thought.

Right?  Well.  Here is South African, Winston Sterzel:

Now Winston blames the communist ANC.  And sure communism may play a part.  But the real problem is corruption.  This is true in most third world hellscapes.  Whether a government leans left or leans right, it is the culture of corruption that results in what you see in this video.

What most people do not understand about corruption is this:  You do not find corruption only at the top.  No, corruption permeates society from top to bottom.  You cannot only say things like, they have a corrupt government or they are corrupt crony capitalists or corrupt communists.  Because where you have those things, I assure you, the cab drivers and the street vendors are also corrupt.  Corruption is not an elite issue; rather it is a cultural failing.

Returning to communism, it is interesting that it seems to take hold most easily in corrupt cultures.  I do not think this is an accident.  Something for nothing, provided by somebody else is appealing to the corruption-minded.

I am not saying that apartheid was a good system.  And I am certainly not calling for its return.  But today, the citizens of South Africa have no one to blame for the failings of their country except themselves and the leaders they vote for.  They have the government and the society that they want.  They have the government and society that they deserve.

So that's okay then.
𓐵

Islamic Immigration into Europe

Peter Boghossian and Raymond Ibrahim, and the Cameraman

Boghossian and Ibrahim talk about why Europe is dying, but about ninety minutes in, their cameraman injects himself into the conversation, with a real time demonstration of suicidal empathy.  The argument of the left on full display.  And they allow the cameraman to make his points.  Then after quizzing the cameraman on what exactly he believes, Boghossian makes the point the we are going to get the Europe that the cameraman is championing.  The cameraman seems to be okay with that because he does not believe that Islam offers any danger to Europe.  And besides, Muslims are too low of a percentage of the overall population to make much difference.

Listening to the cameraman, I could not help but reflect that this is what millions of Europeans believe.  They either don't think about this at all, or they believe what the cameraman believes.  And there is no reasoning with the cameraman because he has his doctrine and his dogma, and these convictions are immune to reason.  As with any religion.

I love the way Boghossian dealt with this guy.  He did not argue with him.  He let the cameraman make his points, and then he simply asked a few questions to clarify what the guy believed.  And here, if you do not understand the reality of Islam and European political leadership, you might think that the cameraman got the better of Boghossian and Ibrahim.  But I think Boghossian is well aware of who is watching, both in the live audience and online.  And to those people, the cameraman is simply yet another naive leftist.  So Boghossian just let him dig his hole.

Ordinarily I would say that this was painful to watch.  But it was not.  Watching this was like watching someone predict a train wreck without realizing that is what they are doing, but you know with certainty that they are correct.  By the time that the bien-pensants wake from their trance, it will be too late.

What this shows is that suicidal empathy is a choice.  A warmly embraced and welcome choice.  It is also a bit smug; you hear this in the cameraman's responses:  He looks down on Boghossian and Ibrahim for their obvious bigotry.

This is not entertaining; this is a snuff film.

𓐵

David Starkey and David Betz

Civil War:  The Somewheres versus the Anywheres and the Muslims



The above videio is from earlier this month.  I have posted David Betz videos twice before in the last year:  Here with Louise Perry (audio only), and here with the Triggernometry guys.  Further, I have collected notable Betz videos on this topic here.

For residents of Britain, I see four possibilities.  One, you can stay and fight.  Two, leave now, before the violence begins.  Three, stay and work towards peaceful subjugation.  Not because you want subjugation, but because you believe in coexistence.  Of course you do.  Four, denial.  This is the Keir Starmer approach.  And millions of Anywheres share it.  They will bear the brunt of the violence, and as the cause of this problem, they surely deserve it.

In the end, options three and four will be one and the same.  Ultimately the deniers will die in the coming violence or submit to Islam, which arguably, they already have.  When you are willingly giving over your daughters for rape, you have already submitted.

But wait, one might argue that Keir Starmer and his ilk are not giving over their own daughters for rape.  Right?  But that is the whole point:  They are giving over the daughters of the Somewheres.  And before they fed the Somewhere daughters to the immigrant rapists, they let uncountable numbers of these consanguineous monsters into the country.  And rape is but one part of the cultural conflict.

This is the reason I say they, the Anywheres, deserve it.  What did they think would happen?  No, they did not think at all.  But they love to tell people how clever they are; just ask them.  After all, they are citizens of the world.

So for we of lesser intellect, but with perhaps a modicum of common sense, only the first two possibilities are viable.  Stay and fight, or flee.  But make up your mind quickly; both options require planning.

If you choose to stay and fight, one does wonder if, in fact, there is going to be a fight?  If recent history is anything to go by, submission will be more palatable for most.  So if you stay and fight, I do not think you will be joining the fight.

No, if you stay, you will have to start the fight.

𓐵

The Center Cannot Hold

The Second Coming
By William Butler Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming!  Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight:  somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?


Thanks to Heather Heying; she reads the poem here.  While written in 1919 and first published in 1920, it could have been written this morning.  See gyre definition; and that is only the beginning of the poem.  To say that the poem has aged well is an understatement.  Along with W.H. Auden's Funeral Blues (1938) and Dylan Thomas' Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night (1951), it is a masterpiece of the twentieth century.  William Butler Yeats won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1923.

𓐵