Given that 'proficient' is the bare minimum standard, and education standards in America are already extremely low, it's safe to say that no children in America know any history at all. This makes my latest chapter of '100 Waifus,' in contrast, stand out all the more. What would life be like, what would society look like, if everyone knew as much history as the children of '100 Waifus' learn during their education? Wouldn't society be a lot better? That's my theory. Likewise, it explains a lot, how awful everything is, when you realize the people voting for public policy don't know a single thing about history. How can you make any good decision about public policy without knowing what similar policies did in the past and their likelihood of success or failure thereby?
History is the most important subject in school, honestly you could teach nothing but history in school and get like 90% of the benefit of schooling. Nobody uses math or science in their later life. People learn their native language naturally and don't have to go to school to expand their vocabulary. So in the end it comes down to history. History is the purpose of school. If you aren't teaching history in school you may as well shut it down and let kids gambol across the fields all day.
I didn't know when I wrote the latest chapter of '100 Waifus' that it would yet again serve as a completely opposite antimatter to today's matter. I thought history was taught in America, but in a distorted way that made whites look bad. Now I learn that it isn't taught in any way at all, the teachers just go out to lunch during that period and the kids fly paper airplanes. It's all so pathetic. You cannot save a country this steeped in ignorance and stupidity. There is no one to persuade because nobody can understand your arguments no matter how clearly or well they're constructed. They're ignoramuses.
This score is yet again the lowest in recorded history. Americans are continuously setting new records in how pathetic they are.
The new argument given for Tucker Carlson's firing is that he said white men don't fight by ganging up multiple on one, normally speaking. This is of course borne out by statistics which can be found on the FBI's own database which lists single-incident assaults and multiple-incident assaults, showing that whites are less likely than their percentage of the population to be responsible for multiple-incident assaults, whiles blacks are more likely than their percentage of the population (who would have guessed.) Everyone knows it's a trademark of blacks to swarm helpless opponents while whites prefer winning honorably in duels. But apparently saying something out loud that the FBI is reporting every year indisputably and everyone knows just by lived experience is a firing offense and 'racist' in America.
In my world you wouldn't be censored for telling the truth, but denying the truth. The people I'd 'cancel,' with a bullet to the back of their heads, would be anyone who denies that there is any difference in racial proclivities towards swarm attacks. I have no patience for people who brazenly lie when the facts are already established and well known.
I also like how 'experts' are now declaring that the attempted drone attack on the Kremlin is a false flag attack. Yeah, 'experts,' the same 'experts' who said Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation. The same experts who said Russia blew up its own pipelines. Somehow, it's a conspiracy theory whenever someone says 9/11 was an inside job, but an 'expert opinion' whenever someone says Russia attacked itself. The double standards are always so brazen.
These experts have no more access to information about the attack than you or I. They have no 'expertise' in the matter at all, except that they're expert liars who do it every day to the American people. The likelihood of it being an inside attack therefore can only be divined by how beneficial to Russia it would be to stage such a farce. The answer is it wouldn't be beneficial in the least, therefore Russia couldn't possibly be behind it.
What does Russia gain from staging the attempted assassination of Putin? They're already at war with Ukraine and already have the right to kill whoever they want in Ukraine. They have no desire to kill Zelensky because he's an inept military commander who has stubbornly held on to territory like Bakhmut while surrounded on three sides and getting absolutely shredded. Zelensky is Russia's most powerful weapon in Ukraine, he kills more Ukrainian soldiers than any Russian could ever hope or dream of. Staging an event in order to 'get permission' (from whom?) to kill Zelensky when they're happy with Zelensky being in charge makes no sense.
Zelensky is a pornographic dancer whose very existence makes a mockery of the idea of Ukraine. He is a Jew running a Slavic country and oppressing the Orthodox Christian Church. There could not be a more ideal leader, propaganda wise, for Russia to be fighting against. Why would you ever seek to replace him? Who benefits from Zelensky dying? Not Russia.
There are multiple reasonable scenarios that are much more likely than what these 'experts' say happened. One is Ukrainian authorities seriously did try to kill Putin because they fear his charisma and ability to unite Russia around the goal of victory at any cost, and hope that a less well known leader of Russia won't be able to inspire as much patriotism. The next theory is Ukraine just wanted to pull off an embarrassing stunt and weren't aiming for Putin's life, but because the drones were shot down it's impossible to prove their 'innocent' motive. The third theory, that Zelensky himself put forward, is that Ukrainian sympathizing Russian terrorists attempted it who were already living in Moscow. There are certainly plenty of Russian dissidents who would like to take out Putin and these cheap ineffectual drones are the sort of things they could get their hands on. A fourth theory is that western intelligence agencies carried out the attack in the hopes that Russia would respond by assassinating Zelensky, which the west would love because he's such a terrible leader, or doing some other overreaction which would make them look bad in the rest of the world press which they're trying to rally against Russia. All of these theories are far more probable and make sense from a 'who benefits?' point of view. And yet the American 'experts' have decided it was a false flag attack. The least likely scenario that no one benefits from. So much for their 'expertise' in critical thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment