Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Looking at Strzok’s testimony through a post-modern lens

Man who considers himself a transgender woman: “In my mind, I’m a woman. You are required to take my opinions, residing solely in my brain, over any evidence to the contrary. It’s outrageous and insulting to suggest otherwise.”

Peter Strzok, paraphrased from his testimony yesterday: “In my mind, I’m not biased in my professional performance. You are required to take my opinions, residing solely in my brain, over any evidence to the contrary. It’s outrageous and insulting to suggest otherwise.”

It’s no accident that this comparison feels valid. The parallels are there. They come from the post-modern idea that there is no objective truth. There is only the narrative.

A man with gender dysphoria doesn’t believe in objective facts about his situation. He believes only in what he feels, and what he can get others to accept. If he gets a critical mass of people to agree that he’s a woman, then the narrative is established, and the rest of us are not supposed to challenge it with any of our grubby facts and evidence.

When it comes to Peter Strzok’s motivations and actions, he doesn’t believe in objective facts either. Not even for the purposes of law enforcement. The FBI has shown that facts in cases against people they dislike are not particularly important. What’s important is what they can get a grand jury, a judge, and the public to go along with. The narrative is that a minor misstatement by innocuous people like Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby is a heinous crime, deserving of prison time, whereas breaking federal law for years and mishandling classified information is no big deal and certainly not worthy of prosecution.

In the testimony yesterday, Strzok’s narrative is that he might have a teensy weensy bit of bias against Trump and for Hillary, but he’s such a superman that he never, ever, not for a single moment, allowed that bias to affect his professional performance.

This doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Yet, the post-modern left, including Strzok’s toadying allies in the Democrat Party and the media, defend him to the hilt. I call them all post-modern because the truth about the situation is entirely irrelevant when it comes to what the left wants and needs. What matters is what kind of narrative they can spin and get accepted.

That narrative doesn’t have to be actually believed by their opponents. Many people look at a man with gender dysphoria, and simply don’t believe that he’s a woman. They know the biology, and they know how people can deceive themselves into believing all kinds of nutty things. But the howler monkey gallery on the left will descend upon them if they make that opinion known. So they never say what they believe about it; life is hard, and there’s just no benefit to standing up to a psychologically disturbed person and stating the truth.

Similarly, the media and the Democrats don’t care if you or I believe Strzok is a lying sack of shit and a thug with a badge, or if we think the investigations he drove were explicitly to help the side he likes and sabotage the side he hates. They just want there to be enough people around parroting their narrative about him, so that if we say something negative about Strzok in polite conversation, one of their brainwashed howler monkeys will jump in with “How dare you?”

Much of the left’s energy in modern day society is devoted to constantly, continuously battling the truth that makes them look bad. Their main weapon is to make discussion of such truth out of bounds. They have many tactics to do that; we saw some on the floor of the Congress yesterday.

I think the most important single reason they loathe Trump with all their being is that he says what he thinks anyway, swatting their outrage aside like a gnat, and thereby poses an existential threat to their main means of control.

We all better hope Trump is successful in rendering that tactic ineffective. Otherwise, the end result is two political sides that hate each others’ guts and have no way to communicate about it.

Let me be clear, in case it isn’t obvious: the side that is responsible for that state of affairs is the one that abandoned truth in favor of post-modernist thinking. You can’t argue with them in Enlightenment fashion because they don’t accept the premises of the Enlightenment.

At this point, the left’s complete capitulation to post-modernism means that they have shut off all paths to a peaceful resolution. It’s about attaining and maintaining power for them now. Until people like Trey Gowdy and Jeff Sessions(zzz) are prepared to accept this reality and use every means at their disposal, including force. For example, they need to be jailing perps such as Strzok, Page, Comey, Lerner, Koskinen, McCabe, et.al. Otherwise, the left pays no price for their thuggishness and denial of reality. They will retain their power to maliciously ruin the lives of their political opponents, and retain control for the left at the federal level, no matter what the citizenry wants.

If allowed to stand, this effectively ends the American experiment. We all know the possibilities that branch outward from that point, and none of them are good.

Share

8 thoughts on “Looking at Strzok’s testimony through a post-modern lens

  1. Cogently and succinctly stated.

    Either they come in off the ledge, or it’s time to give them a push.

  2. They aren’t coming in off the ledge any more than William Garrison, Charles Sumner or John Brown did in 1856, so it’s going to lead to another 1859 Harpers Ferry and Secret Six, because fanaticism leads to blood, inevitably.

    The social justice warrriors of the 19th century got their revolution by bringing on a civil war because they refused to back off. They won that war, but I don’t think their 21st century descendants understand the balance of power is tilting back toward reality, which will make their revolution resemble the Spartacist Revolt of 1919.

  3. Welcome aboard, Billy! I was just trying to get motivated to mention this shitshow myself, and was having trouble coming up with anything more than “get back to me when one of these scumbags is in prison.”

    1. I was just watching that smirking jerk, thinking “He just expects his preposterous nonsense to be accepted just by showing arrogance and indignation! Why does he expect that?”

      And then I realized how many people on the left expect us to swallow preposterous stuff every day, and how they have an entire phalanx of enforcers to coerce us into doing it.

  4. Good stuff.

    At the same time, IMHO, it is VERY significant that almost every FBI player in this drama is a child of Robert Mueller, who ran the Feebs for 12 years prior to Comey’s appointment (so, effectively, 16 years of Mueller-management.)

    The ones we see, of course, are only the tip of the iceberg.

    1. Completely agree, and I think I was one of the early group pushing back on right-leaning pundits about this.

      12-18 months ago, it was common for every article on the FBI to include mealy-mouthed assertions that the Bureau was fine and upstanding except for a few bad apples at the top. I never believed this. Consider the crime lab scandals in the 1990s, through Waco and Ruby Ridge, and the malicious, politically-driven prosecutions in the 21st century. The FBI has been shot through a long time with corrupt, politically biased hacks.

      So I started pushing back on that mealy-mouthed assertion every time I saw it, pointing out that there was not a shred of evidence for it. Slowly, slowly, since then, I’ve noticed that the assertion is rarely present now.

      Which is as it should be. Sure, there are decent people in the FBI. But when the entire upper echelon consists of corrupt Deep State operatives allied with the Democrats, it’s ridiculous to think the culture there doesn’t have something to do with that. That’s the kind of people who get promoted, so the culture must by definition be extremely friendly to that kind of agent.

Comments are closed.

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix