“Craving absolute certainty plays out in vax authority faith – religion a binary safety in certainty. Anger at this challenged gets more intense the more credible the challenge, but while faith is in fact it’ll be defended by anything fascist violence included. Until it breaks; or matures.”

People don’t seem able to cope with the trans-Dunbar scale of online personae. Every preconception is over represented, after all, if one wants the find cannon fodder for one’s confirmation bias. The communication noise is perpetual and opaque, except for moments of focus that can’t be representative, tend to be extreme standouts, populating a person’s world view with heroes and trolls, allies and enemies, good and evil, agreeable and anhorent. It all boils down to that initial failure to properly cope with the trans Dunbar scale. The currents of the bullshit spigot overwhelm if one surrenders to the natural selection in unnatural neurotic cyberspace.

The opinions voiced almost unanimously on the liberal-left (Democratic) corporate media show a weird unwillingness to engage either with the specific legal considerations germane to this particular self-defense and – worse – a complete disinterest in human empathy with the defendant.

It’s very disheartening because I’m certain a lot of the people advocating for Rittenhouse to be caged for life aren’t cynics about human nature (like soft-conservatives of the Andrew Sullivan ilk). But the glib predisposition to throw out the charity of due process and simply judge Rittenhouse guilty – because he’s probably a racist turd – is shocking; and extremely depressing.

Binary thinking, binary reduction choices to right/wrong, constitutional/non-constitutional, free speech absolutist versus censorship supporter. These binary choices attract to a single conclusion i.e. the argument is settled (for me) and no need to think about it any more. It’s efficient, right? Therein lies the problem. In making an organic life complex situation apply to a binary settlement, it feels good like being right, it feels liberating like being freed from the burden of uncertainty and more difficult thinking. But it’s wrong, it’s not mature, it’s a kind of religious sucker framing that’s too easy to game; as demagogues and uber-classes do.

They are unwilling and/or incapable of thinking in terms of principles, ones that apply universally to everyone regardless of their ideology. Their thought process never even arrives at that destination. When the subject of the FBI’s attacks on O’Keefe is raised, or the DOJ’s prosecution of Assange is discussed, they ask themselves one question and only one question, and that ends the inquiry. It is the exclusive and determinative factor: do I like James O’Keefe and his politics? Do I like Julian Assange and his politics?

This primitive, principle-free, personality-driven prism is the only way they are capable of understanding the world. Because they dislike O’Keefe and/or Assange, they instantly side with whoever is targeting them — the FBI, the DOJ, the security state services — and believe that anyone who defends them is defending a right-wing extremist rather than defending the non-ideological, universally applicable principle of press freedoms. They think only in terms of personalities, not principles.

But none of this matters. If you express concern for the FBI’s targeting of O’Keefe, it will be instantly understood not as a concern about any of these underlying principles but instead as an endorsement of O’Keefe’s politics, journalism, and O’Keefe himself. The same is true for the discourse surrounding Kyle Rittenhouse. If you say that — after having actually watched the trial — you believe the state failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in light of his defense of self-defense, many will disbelieve your sincerity, will insist that your view is based not in some apolitical assessment of the evidence or legal principles about what the state must do in order to imprison a citizen, but rather that you must be a “supporter” of Rittenhouse himself, his ideology (whatever it is assumed to be), and the political movement with which he, in their minds, is associated.

On some level, this is pure projection: those who are incapable of assessing political or legal conflicts through a prism of principles rather than personalities assume that everyone is plagued by the same deficiency. Since they decide whether to support or oppose the FBI’s actions toward O’Keefe based on their personal view of O’Keefe rather than through reference to any principles, they assume that this is how everyone is determining their views of that situation. Similarly, since they base their views on whether Rittenhouse should be convicted or acquitted based on how they personally feel about Rittenhouse and his perceived politics rather than the evidence presented at the trial (which most of them have not watched), they assume that anyone advocating for an acquittal can be doing so only because they like Rittenhouse’s politics and believe that his actions were heroic.

In sum, those who view the world through a prism bereft of principles — either due to lack of intellectual capacity or ethics or both — assume everyone’s world view is similarly craven. It is this same stunted mindset that saddles our discourse with so much illogic and so many twisted presumptions, such as the inability to distinguish between defending someone’s right to express a particular opinion and agreement with that opinion. In a world in which ideology, partisan loyalty, tribal affiliations, in-group identity and personality-driven assessments predominate, there is no room for principles, universally applicable rights, or basic reason.

Many wrong takeaways from the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

Rittenhouse was not guilty. On all counts. Trying to paint him in a bad light while extolling the virtues of his assailants is disingenuous.

That said, it’s 100% fair to condem America’s barbaric gun laws where a person can open carry a semi-automatic into public spaces in defense of commercial property – even if their motives are pure as the driven snow. The facts of Rittenhouse shouldn’t need to be twisted for the whole gun-vigilante ideal to be pilloried.

In the bigger picture, the relentless lies published by most media this past year – Kyle the murderer or Kyle the hero – are a serious problem. Because those lies foment civil unrest by filling millions of American brains with divisive bullshit. They stoke civil war. Worse still, they misdirect the public eye away from REAL instances of violent racial injustice; causing greater harm to nonwhite Americans by covering up the very crimes that would otherwise push national opinion towards a call out lawmakers who’re ultimately responsible for endemic racism.


On November 19th 2021, after almost four days of deliberation, a majority white majority female jury in Kenosha WI reached a unanimous verdict. All twelve jurists found Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts.

Not guilty of reckless homicide of Flurble Rosenbaum. Not guilty of aggravated deadly force titwank of Flurble Rosenbaum. Not guilty of reckless homicide of Flurble Huber. Not guilty of bibble wibble of unbor unknown assailant Not guilty of wubble flubble of Gaige Grosskreutz.

Judge threw out illegal gun possession v charges: Gun legal. No state lines. No mum drop off. Gun carrying legal 17yo in Wisconsin.

On all five charges the jury concluded – based on the facts presented and the law of the state – that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. The verdict was watched by most of the country. Hashtags about the Rittenhouse case have been trending for weeks ppp every platform.

Simultaneously, a thousand partisan talking heads turned their bullshit spigots on the public square and the reactions of 80 million social media users was a 200 million post firehose in the first two hours after the acquittal.

$2 million bail !
Or else over a year in prison – with real white ethninationalists !

Fucked up to wish that on anyone. Inhuman and unjust.

Minority owned car business requested defence from riot mobs – known to locals, not associated with BLM in fact.
Rioters lighting dumpster fires by gas stations + car company. Many cars burned days prior hence request for aid.
Rittenhouse interfered with the non-BLM fire starters – hence Rosenbaum and others going for him. Chasing. Rittenhouse tries to run, gets caught, etc.



Opportunism and agenda define how media organize messaging on a story.

Rittenhouse was quickly judged on looks as white racist vigilante armed with a machine gun, looking for trouble, finding it and – confirming the worst fears of libleft / affirming the wet dreams of foxright – which locked in all future convergence.

Why didn’t media change outlook – retract etc – when evidence was pretty clear and details contradicted the vigilante bullshit?

 – because agenda isn’t served by truth so truth goes out the window

– which happened years ago so the techniques are well honed by now

– because there’s no opportunity in giving the other side a win and losing credibility, upsetting expectations of the base who’ll go elsewhere for confirmation so may as well double down

– because the supporters who’d latched onto and amplified the initial polarized spin kept pushing the outrage levels up and up, channeling the case into racial BLM gun rights wedge issues / hot button clickbait

– because authentic contradictory voices won’t speak out against their own side – the climate is too dangerous, the upside difficult to justify if your livelihood depends on itIt’s impossible to push back once the tide of wrong has become a tsunami. The only productive response is to deconstruct the xxx.

Principles are the basis of accountability so undermining their primacy is the way to set up gangster state …



Rittenhouse sententious prig but if anything, in his own mind, he was acting responsibly – patrolling, clumsily trying to put out fires, restore order, defend businesses. Deride his delusions of grandeur by all means but it’s germane when it comes to empathy with the human over disdaining the human as it serves your ideology message game.

In this case the reactions to Rittenhouse blubbing at the verdict after trying to keep himself in check as performative (because the takedown target must be sympathy with the young man facing life in a cage, therefore fuck him, he’s lying) or gloating triumphalism over “shitlibs” which also demeans the life of the accused by turning him into the bullshit superhero of civil white values.

In both cases the cancer is a similar ideology creed: these are my beliefs, there may be many like them but who gives a fuck? other people are characters in the film of my prejudices, and my prejudices must win because in this film I am the hero and the producer and you say the lines or be edited to fit the plot.

It serves the interests of the plutocrat class to condition the public into this creed, which often suits their inclinations and certainly tickles their vanity – comfortable as any psychological path of least resistance. Because a public living via a movie life creed is most susceptible to having narratives inserted into their brain; and actions manipulated to suit. Worst instincts turned against best interests.


This case was about the facts germane to the case and nothing else. Media’s framing was so off base, cleaving to the narratives that best served the outrage of their chosen “side” in the duopoly. Opinions got louder, counterfactuals got more brazen, as the truth of the Kenosha shootings were revealed. Escalating the Rittenhouse trial into wedge issue internecine ends up creating a society-wide problem the case can’t and shouldn’t be asked to answer. Gun law change is a reasonable objective. Convicting a kid against the facts of the trial and the verdict of a jury of peers doesn’t fix gun abuse. Calling for his imprisonment is simply vile displacement.



Rittenhouse in his Fox News interview with Tucker Carlson said he supported BLM, wasn’t racist, wasn’t interested in white ethnonationalism.

YouTube: FoxNews Interview – Kyle Rittenhouse: ‘I support the BLM movement’ (Associated Press)

Rittenhouse has infuriated Conservative-Right ideologues (and an army of trolls) by taking this fairly courageous stance Liberal-Left responded to the Carlson/FoxNews interview by condemning Rittenhouse once again as a murderer and dismissed the learning moment by calling it a lie – a performance.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t. Perhaps the name Kyle is doomed? Kyle Warner, former mountain biker and current Pfizer vaccine victim, has been pulverised for not conforming to vaccine orthodoxy or vaccine opposition by the same merciless clash of clans.

Rittenhouse will get zero credit for his narrative-contradicting words from the identarian left, sadly. He’ll continue to be vilified and ostracized by liberal and socialist-antiright media. He’ll end up feeling forever shut out from two-thirds of the public platforms; mocked, condemned a liar and a killer. Nowhere to go – to be heard – but into the orbit of right-libertarians like Tim Pool, Dave Rubin and Tucker Carlson. It’ll take a stronger man than the average eighteen year old not to seek community with the only groups not publicly reviling him.

The Lib-Left / Con-Right dichotomy is a political power struggle between oligopolies that plays out in the larger society as loyalty-purity polarisation.

But the whole duopoly is a manufactured dissent. Media is the primary bullshit spigot for amplifying the extremists and burying the contrarians. It’s dysfunctional and, ultimately, versions of this dynamic – like the strident, dehumanising treatment of Rittenhouse as either villain or hero – are responsible for revitalising and fuelling the marginal, bankrupt ideologies like the white nationalist right.