On The Insanity Of The “No Kings” Protests

There are two ways in which leftists avoid the realities of the present.

They fix their eyes on some utopian vision of the future. Any crime is justified because it’s getting them towards that fictional promised land, that John Lennon Imagine-d Future. Where all good things await, purchased in blood and the suffering of others.

Or they pretend that the present is the past, fighting battles already won, or obsessing over ancestral sins, or pretending that an old injustice is a fresh wound and treating every invisible, healed, barely remrmbered scar as a thing requiring a fresh bandage.

They are always casting forwards, with apocalyptic threats about what happens if you don’t obey them, and absurd promises about what happens if you do.

And they are always casting back, with ancient, bitterly nurtured grievances, and obsessional revisions and resentments of the past.

This is why when they talk of themselves, they talk only of the promised future, and never acknowledge the crimes they are commiting at this moment to supposedly get there. The future is not a reality, quite obviously, but an imagination, a delusion, and most of all……a tool. This is the promise that seduces weak minds and justifies evil acts.

This is why when they talk of their opponents they talk only of the imagined past and the ancient grievance, all filtered through a wasteland of historical ignorance and a selectivity that borders on monomania. They are blind to every good their opponents have ever done in the past,and equally blind to their own long history of evil. So it doesn’t matter that Democrats, for instance, formed the KKK, and it doesn’t matter that leftists, for instance, have killed over 100 million people and created death camps and slave camps every time they got the absolute power they crave. This too is why they are obsessed with archaic labels and events that do not in any way apply to modern circumstances and the demands they are making-why they obsess on slavery and Kings, on imperialism and white supremacism.

None of these things are real today, but serve as historical tools, imagined back into existence and placed absurdly on some modern opponents, again allowing a delusion to dominate over contemporary objective reality.

The No Kings events are classic examples of this attitude to the past, present and future. Since everything Trump is doing is both sensible and popular, since it has more support than they have and brings far more benefit than they bring to ordinary existence today, they have to cast back in the past for historic grievance. There’s no argument to make that the economy is worse under Trump. There’s no real argument to make that the average Anerican life gets better with open borders. And of course there’s no argument to make that massive expansions of the State that have failed, that have delivered poverty or illiteracy, crime or chaos, must be sustained because these things employ tens of thousands of affluent Democrats and give jobs to the daughters of Democrat judges.

When offered a choice between a system of looting, both on the street level and the government level, and a system of more enforced honesty, safety and decency, the vast majority of people will pick the second.

Therefore the only arguments to be made against that choice must be delusional ones, which are always easier when we talk of the distant past or the far future. It is easier to fictionalise an understanding of the past or the future than it is to tell people that they haven’t been mugged or raped when they have, or they didn’t hear shots last night, or they weren’t restricted in every way imaginable by Democrats just 5 years ago in experiences they personally had and can still remember.

Trump has to be cast as a King because they have no modern reference to explain why being afraid to walk the streets is better than what Trump is doing today, or why vast spending abroad is better than protecting your own citizens. There’s no way to describe what Trump is actually doing as bad, except by identifying with crime, invasion, perversion or evil, so it’s easier to combine both the fictionalised understanding of the past with the fictionalised presentation of the future: Trump is becoming George III.

This can be done better the less you understand and know the past, and the more you yourself want a tyrannical future. So while it speaks to absolutely no one else and appears purely performative and absurd, it’s a presentation that Democrats can’t avoid making precisely because it is so delusional, and therefore hugely appealing to how they think anyway. As propaganda it’s terrible, as confirmation for themselves alone, it’s irresistible.

Even the billionaire cynical funders of it all are trapped in their own delusional frameworks of thinking. Any level of pragmatic awareness would tell them that spending hundreds of millions of dollars (or more) getting mainly geriatric former hippies and a smattering of young anarchist criminals out on the streets is not going to achieve anything or expand Democrat support. In fact it does the opposite-it looks pathetic, it shows their support as tired and irrelevant, and the very fact that all this can go ahead in Trump’s supposed autocratic monarchy proves the central point of it to be a lie.

The entire senior leadership of the Democrat Party have been clinging to power for far longer than Trump has. The average length of ‘service’ for Schumer, Pelosi and the rest is 40 years in government. How is that less monarchical than Trump’s two election victories (and a third denied by fraud)?

The average Democrat donor wields enormous power over the fate of the nation (and the world) with far less accountability than a President posseses, and has done so far less honestly and publicly than Trump has done by running for office. How is the behaviour of a Soros or a Gates or a Reid Hoffman, in funding politicians and district attorneys and shifting whole areas of policy to their command, less monarchical or more accountable than what Trump has done, who at least publicly argues in person for the things he believes in and asks the test of those policies to be made by free and fair elections?

How is a permanent administrative State which denies the results of elections and tries to enforce a continuance of a set of policies which lost both the popular vote and the electoral college tally less monarchical in its behaviour than a President who won both and is simply attempting to enact the platform he ran on?

The No Kings movement is so disastrous as PR or as propaganda (assuming there is a difference) because it draws attention to all of these things, none of which is beneficial to the Democrats. I’d like to think that there were some Democrat advisors frantically arguing against it all, but the depth of delusion is such that this may not have been the case. Keftists seized control of so many instirutions and so much of public opinion, shifting the Overton window inexorably leftwards over generations, that they forgot that propaganda is not just about forcing your opponent to resentfully accept the ubiquitous presence of your opinions. It is supposed to actually persuade some people as well.

And that’s perhaps the greatest irony of all. They themselves became so unaccountable, so much like Kings, facing none of the vitriol, none of the subversion, none of the demonisation and none of the sabotage they have aimed at Trump, that they forgot that delusions advanced from positions of strength terrify and subdue opposition, but delusions advanced from positions of weakness do the opposite.

Looking at the truly pathetic nature of the No Kings marches will only cement the idea that the Democrats are a dead cause, no matter how much money certain Trump hating billionaires punp into trying to revive the corpse.