Aliens, Predators, and Orlando

Most are no doubt familiar with the late 70’s and late 80’s sci-fi thrillers Alien (1979) and Predator (1987). I assume that most are also well acquainted with the prodigious spinoffs, sequels, prequels, and crossovers spawned (heh) by both franchises. For the uninitiated, Alien introduced  us to a ragtag group of space cowboys returning to Earth aboard the Nostromo after a mission to space when they encounter a signal transmitted from a desolate planetoid. When the Nostromo lands on the planetoid, the crew discovers the wreckage of an alien craft, the remains of a deceased alien within the ship, and a chamber full of alien eggs. During the course of the crew’s assay, one of the eggs hatch and a hatchling attaches itself to the face of one of the crewmen and an alien subsequently bursts from the crewman’s chest while aboard the Nostromo. Unbeknownst to the crew they are explicitly expendable: their employer, the Wayland-Yutani corporation, knows of the creature’s existence and intentionally sent the crew to the planetoid to recover the organism at all costs, likely for development into some sort of biological weapon. Naturally, the mission goes horribly wrong when the target alien unexpectedly gets out of containment and cannibalizes the entire crew save the intrepid Ripley.

Predator, on the other hand, follows a crew of high T special forces agents enlisted by the CIA to rescue a high ranking official being held hostage by guerrillas in the Central American jungle country of Val Verde. Led by Maj. Alan “Dutch” Schaefer and supervised by former commando George Dillon, the team heads into the jungle to rescue the official, only to discover that they are “expendable assets,” intentionally sent there by USG not to extract an official, but to retrieve valuable intelligence from captured operatives. Unfortunately, the mission goes badly awry then the crew encounters the titular antagonist, an extraterrestrial predator that picks the crew off one by one, save the intrepid Schaefer.

On June 11, 2016, many celebratory LGBTQ folks and allies went to the Pulse nightclub (a gay venue) in Orlando, FL to enjoy the freedoms afforded them by virtue of living in an open and liberal society. Unfortunately for them, their celebrations went horribly awry and ended tragically when an American-born Afghani with Islamist leanings and an abiding hatred of faggotry named Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, entered the club and slaughtered 50 unsuspecting homos while wounding 53 more before himself being killed. The event now has the dubious distinction of being the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history and the most significant terrorist attack since the September 11 attacks. Unbeknownst to the party goers, Mateen was known to the FBI and called 911 during the attack to inform authorities that he had pledged allegiance to ISIS.


The question of why these mass murder psyops always seem to happen in June aside, what’s the connection between the three? Let’s begin with the films. What was it that made both Alien and Predator so poignant to viewers both then and now? Certainly, the storytelling in both movies was sterling and both were superbly acted. Nevertheless, the common theme shared by both films is apparent to every viewer. Thematically speaking, the crux of the problem, the catalyst for the supervening events in both films was elite malfeasance-particularly the willingness of elites to lie to and sacrifice non-elites for the sake of some unspecified agenda, whether pecuniary, programmatic, or ideological. In Alien, the Nostromo’s space cowboys were deceived by the Wayland Corporation and sent on a suicide mission so that the Corporation could create the ultimate bioweapon. In Predator, USG sent a cadre of “expendable [CIA] assets” into the heart of darkness to retrieve intel from a guerrilla faction. This is no different from what occurred in Orlando on Saturday night. Granted, cause and effect are much more tenuous than they were in either Alien or Predator, but the impulse remains the same-sacrifice of the lows for the benefit of the highs. The true battle is always and ever between the highs and the lows, with a healthy dose of pretext and a high body count in the middle.

Let us think about things logically. Mateen was known to the FBI and he openly voiced his opinions to anyone who would listen. Yet, he was deemed not to be a threat back in 2013. More abstractly, the Establishment Left struggles to reconcile the fundamentally irreconcilable differences of all the constituent parts of its coalition by falsely advancing the notion that everyone is equally capable of participation in a liberal democracy, that there are no differences between groups worth discussing, and that to suggest otherwise is incorrect and/or racist. The Left has people putting themselves at risk, running around believing utter balderdash that is false on its face: that Islam is not the problem, that it is a “religion of peace,” that it is racist to exclude Muslims from civic participation and from entry into the the U.S., that No True Muslim would do what Mateen did, that the true danger is from Angry White Christian Men, that guns are the problem, that homophobia is the problem, et cetera ad infinitum. So people are left incapable of parsing the truth from the lies. 

The Left has turned normies into total retards undesirious of looking at the totality of the evidence, lest they discover something that conflicts with the narrative. Narrative preservation is possible only when every element is viewed as discrete and unrelated. Meanwhile, those made of sterner stuff, those who are willing to call events as they see them, those who might save the world-are actively suppressed.

How is Orlando not a product of the active malfeasance of the political classes? 

How could the Left at once claim to advance the cause of liberal, Western democracy (and its attendant degeneracy) and in the same breath argue for the wholesale importation of individuals from cultures that hate liberalism and openly preach the gospel of its overthrow? How can the Left observe Muslims pledging allegiance to ISIS and shouting Allahu Akbar while gunning people down, and insist that it has nothing to do with Islam? Does it make sense to promote homosexuality as a value while simultaneously promoting a lax immigration policy that would allow in individuals who view the killing of homosexuals as a mitzvah? Casualties will naturally result from these clashing values; Orlando is the most recent evidence of this. Nevertheless, Americans are continually browbeaten by their (((elites))) into welcoming destablilizing elements into the country without questioning their motives, their allegiance to the state, or their compatibility with the wider culture.

Our (((elites))) are no different from the elites in Alien or Predator, actively weaponizing our ignorance and goodwill to use against us. Whether corporate or governmental, in every instance the powers that be are setting us up. In every instance, they know something you don’t know-and they’re not telling. We are being played. They are not above lying to us to get their way. We are all expendable assets in the ongoing struggle for power and supremacy. I feel for the families impacted by the events in Orlando, but this is the reality. We are the prey. And these events will continue to happen, so long as individuals are prevented from accurately identifying the nature of the problem and neutralizing the threat. We will continue to be cannon fodder in the war to vindicate prog ideology.

It’s time for us to begin approaching anything that our (((thought leaders))) and actual leaders advance with intense skepticism. It’s high time that we all become conspiracy theorists. The powers that be will dissimulate, will lie to you, will use you and then will kill you if doing so would enable them to accomplish their ends. Now we know: we are besieged from within and from without.

It’s time to act accordingly.

 

Degenerates for “Democracy”

I.

For a while now I’ve felt this gnawing antagonism towards most people. The incipient rage was inexplicable, and defied articulation. Why was I so irritable? What could be the cause? Once the 2016 presidential jockeying began in earnest I noticed that the irritability deepened with every boneheaded social media post that I read about the virtues of vaginal voting (Retards for Hillary) or revolutionary populism (Reds for Sanders). It was all so aggravatingly dense, this much was true. Yet still, I couldn’t adequately explain to myself the reason for this internal tumult.

Last week brought the incertitude to an end in a flash. In two days, I could articulate everything that I’d only intuited darkly for months. The trio of cases decided last week by the Supreme Court (in its supreme wisdom) crystallized everything, clearly revealing my own subconscious to me. While I believed the cases to be wrongly decided and ideologically motivated, I was bothered not so much by the determinations themselves as I was by the jubilant reactions to decisions rendered in contravention of all Constitutional principles.

I finally apprehended what had eluded me for so long: that core principles-and by extension the systems and orders sustained only through the the recognition of these core principles-no longer mean anything to the Typical American. The Typical American prefers the “feelgoods” of political expediency and the gratification of seeing enemies vanquished to the discomfort of developing solutions to the most pressing issues facing the demos through engagement, logic, and protocol. The Typical American cannot comprehend that every ill-gotten short term victory takes them ever closer to the gulag in the long term.

At bottom, my simmering rage was no more than the sadness of an individual coming to grips with the implications of the culture’s wholesale rejection of principles and fundamentals. 

Intellectually, the average American prefers the sugar rush to the slow burn, simultaneously incapable of adhering to principle and of understanding the consequences of rejecting principle in favor of ad hoc rationalizations. This makes it clear that this is no longer a nation that can countenance democracy. Last week was both an augur and a revelation as it relates to the American democratic experiment, presaging the end of the American democratic republic and unmasking the populace’s unfitness to be governed by a system of democratic norms.

II.

The question of whether democracy is valid as a model of governance aside, for democracy (rule by the people) to remain viable, the people who are to rule must be a virtuous one. That is to say: if a democracy is to remain functional and durable, the people (the rulers of a democracy) must be morally excellent, good, righteous, ethical, and upright. The Founders were unequivocal in this outlook. The people need discernment to distinguish between right and wrong and to steer the republic in the right direction. In the words of Thomas Jefferson:

No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and … their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice … These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government. (Emphasis added)

A functional democracy presupposes the virtue of the citizenry. Underlying this presupposition is that there are that there are cognizable principles and timeless truths which exist for a reason and inform the individual on how to properly order his life. Thus, individuals in the aggregate, the demos/body politic, can effectuate virtuous rule through the adherence to principle.

Principle: (1) a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived, (2) an adopted rule or method for application in action (3) a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like.

In a healthy society, the principles underlying norms of virtue would be explicated to all and these norms would be transmitted from generation to generation, through the mechanisms of family, faith, and society and making individuals fit for self-governance. There are no longer any mechanisms for the transmission of virtue from generation to generation, leaving society only with the cancerous philosophies of non-judgmentalism and “if it feels good, do it” to guide its actions. People now embrace relativism so thoroughly that they can be whipped into near Puritanical fervor by devious elites in defense of even the meanest of vices.

Even at its best the cause of democracy is nonetheless easily subverted by power hungry, silver tongued demagogues. Without adherence to principle, there can be no virtue. Without virtue, there can be (and should be) no democracy. What was democracy in times when virtue and tradition were ascendant quickly devolves into rule by fiat, mobocracy or kakistocracy when virtue and tradition are at an ebb.

If you cheered the Supreme Court’s wrongheaded, “anything goes” jurisprudence on gay marriage with cries of “Love Wins!,” you cannot also have respect for the foundational American constitutional principles of states’ rights and federalism. You certainly don’t care about impartiality, or the non-justiciability of political questions. You’re perfectly fine with the Court making law rather than adjudicating questions of constitutional import.

If you cheered the Court’s Obamacare decision, you cannot also believe in the principles freedom of choice and freedom from undue government coercion.

If you cheered the Court’s housing decision in the Texas case, you cannot also believe in the principle of freedom of association.

If you opt to vote for a candidate because he promises to “redistribute” wealth from people who have earned it to you because “income inequality,” the only principle you believe in is parasitism.

If you elect a candidate on the basis of their genitals rather than on the basis of their platform, you are a degenerate.

If any of these statements characterize you, your inability to grasp first principles betrays your lack of virtue. You really cannot say that you believe in anything but expediency and emotionalism. You are worthless and dissolute and a perfect example of why democracy is completely untenable.

And this is precisely what has been bothering me this whole time.

III.
Without these limiting principles to inform the populace and without virtue to tamp down the people’s enthusiasm for oppression, the mob develops. This is what we see now, littering the political and social landscapes. The gay mob. The race mob. The feminist mob. The equality mob. The immigration mob. The mob is never guided by principle, and never restrained by virtue. The mob is ever envious, bloodthirsty, and totalitarian. It is always willing to use the public and private levers of power to extract its pound of flesh, to expropriate, and to impose its will forcibly upon those who resist, cackling as rights atrophy to irrelevancies under its capricious rule. There is no right, there is no wrong; everything becomes permissible and good so long as it advances some previously articulated goal or another. All means become acceptable so long as the predetermined ends are achieved. This is the attitude of the late model, Typical American who accepts his enslavement with a hashtag and a smile. The agenda is the principle. And I hate having to live in a world with these people.