Rationalizing the Ridiculous

The path to contemporary dissent involves acquiring information, taking that information into consideration, and then concluding that some or all of the establishment narratives are false.

This imparts an aspiration in dissidents to change the minds of people who buy into narratives that are demonstrably false by demonstrating that they’re false. The problem is that many intellects aren’t geared up to make that trip.

For instance, if the topic comes up at a social gathering, one might wish to point out that narrative about how the justice system disproportionately affects POCs is illogical by citing federal crime statistics. This can often lead to being dismissed out of hand.

The dismissal has nothing to do with the validity of the facts and logic offered. The interlocutor might even have some profession which requires the capability to perform critical thinking. However, making a taboo conclusion regarding the narrative would be detrimental to the way this man sees himself. It’s therefore not a process his conscious can allow.

This is because such people consider themselves moral and sophisticated in relation to the establishment. It’s a perverted form of in-group preference. They can’t accept the truth if doing so implies that they are one of the bad, stupid creatures.

So, the narratives must be affirmed no matter the absurdity or how much the goal posts shift. To score, they must rationalize official doctrine to themselves. Of course, there’s no logical way to accomplish this feat. It’s therefore essential to discount contradictory information without giving it any consideration.

That’s why one of the principal functions of the MSM isn’t selling narratives. It’s to provide rationales as to why people should never undertake counterfactual deliberations. In other words, it’s not about convincing them about the merits of a narrative. It’s about offering excuses for not questioning it.

The MSM accomplishes this task in two ways. The first is ad hominem attacks on those making the argument. That involves the usual pejoratives and the impugning of their sanity. Many of us have had personal experiences with this one.

The second would be setting up arguments to the contrary of the narrative as strawmen. These fake anti-narratives are patently absurd. For instance, asserting that a desire to end mass migration is rooted in genocidal inclinations or conflating distrust in the government with a paranoid belief that it’s “controlled by lizard people.”

Mostly, it involves nothing more than labeling something a conspiracy theory. It can be frustrating to watch reality be dismissed with such little exertion, but it’s just something we need to get over. Promoting truth is a high-effort endeavor.

The recent NYT article featured below does all of the above. It’s not really worth reading except as an example of how the premier establishment publication provides the good people who read it with excuses for why their sophisticated brains shouldn’t bother questioning what it publishes.

To reiterate, propaganda isn’t always about selling the unsellable because that usually only works on unhinged cat ladies and antifa goons. It’s about helping normal people rationalize the ridiculous.

Tom Shackleford

I’m proud to officially announce my candidacy for the office of Dogcatcher.