“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." -- GK Chesterton

Chesterton’s Fence has a certain popularity amongst those who wish oppose various socially progressive ideas, and there is a misconception that those who wish to destroy this or that are doing so without considering the nature of what they wish to tear down. That if the progressive adhered to Chesterton’s Fence that there could be a more productive conversation between the reformer and his opponents. This is a grave mistake. It may be a hard thing to accept, but the revolutionary often has a better understanding of the nature and purpose of the institutions he wishes to dismantle than those who oppose him.

Take for instance the widespread acceptance among certain Christian communities of LGBTQ ideology or Feminism. Acceptance of both of these ideologies by Christians require the dismantling fences that have stood for thousands of years. Their opponents might naively bemoan that these progressives should have considered why things were the way they were; that an appeal the “niceness” of modernity was no basis for such sweeping changes; that they should have considered Chesterton’s Fence. The thing is these people know the purpose of the fences in question and are lying about their reason for wanting to tear them down. In fact, they are lying about even wanting to tear them down; they claim that after removing everything but the posts that the fences has been improved. They are lying.

To understand why they do this, you need to know what they know: what is the fence for, and why they would want it gone. It would also help to know why they are lying.

When the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was signed into law, its proponents made two claims. The first was that the old quota system unjustly restricted immigration because it expressly aimed to maintain the character of the American people, that is to say a Nation predominantly comprised of White Christians. Their second claim that the law would not have a significant impact on the culture or demographics of the American people. Obviously, they were talking out of both sides of their mouths. You see, Emanuel Cellar knew the purpose of US immigration law prior to 1965, but he didn’t go around saying that the predominantly White and Christian nature of the United States must be destroyed: he claimed that the principles that protected such a system were unjust, then he claimed that the major changes he proposed would have no effect. He was not ignorant of the nature of the thing he wanted to destroy; he ignored its nature and appealed to the better nature of the American people for permission to destroy it. In short, he was lying.

Chesterton’s Fence presumes that the reformer is not actively engaged in subterfuge, but this is not typically the case. The revolutionary knows why the fence is there but demands of its defender “why do you care; how does this even effect you?” when he begins to tear it down. They don’t want you to know what the fence is for, and they certainly don’t want you to know that they know what the fence is for. They are lying.

Why would Philip Hart, Emanual Cellar, and Lyndon Johnson lie? Because it would have been a pretty hard sell, even to the rank-and-file liberal of last century, to say “we should pass a law aimed at reducing the White proportion of the population,” but that’s what they were aiming for. It was, however, surprisingly easy to convince Americans left-right-and-center that they ought to be nicer to foreigners of all creeds and colors, never mind that the framers of the Hart-Caller act were expressly aiming to tear down the fence that maintained the ethnic and religious nature of the American Nation. It was an appeal to be allowed to use American principles to destroy the Americans that upheld those same principles. They were again, of course, lying.

When barbarians arrive at the gate saying, “we are not a conquering enemy; we are but poor refugees,” do not believe them. When the progressive says, ‘we do not want to destroy the American family; we are only teaching your children empathy for the other,” do not believe them. When the pastor says, “we do not wish to change the Christian Religion; we are simply teaching our flock to be more tolerant,” do not believe them. Assume they are lying.

10/11 days ago 4chan went down as mentioned here

https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/19AxC0OeGm/4chan-hacked/c/

It's now back.

It's still shit, don't worry.

Here is an original Colonial Penn commercial from 2024 with a white couple talking about the seventy year old marathoner.

https://youtu.be/EXGTeKt1fqw?si=iktgzr6pF9M3Xj6B

And here is a 2025 commercial with a black couple talking about a seventy year old marathoner

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/TfZZ/colonial-penn-sisters-neighbor

Sorry this is the only place I could find the latest commercial. Anyways it's essentially the same commercial except the couples race is switched.

Original: https://x.com/wokal_distance/status/1915233075455521020 (thread)

Archive: https://archive.is/PRj1h

This snuck by me yesterday.

In case you have been living under a rock, disparate impact has long been a tool which the feds use to come in institutionalize rules that favor minorities over whites, and has been used to turn school districts into the worst sort of lord of the flies institutions you can imagine. How it worked was that the mere appearance of disparate impact on any minority by policy was de facto assumed to be racist, and draw federal investigations. I can think of two school districts that were utterly destroyed by this, Minneapolis and Orange County, FL. Blacks now run the halls in Minneapolis violently assaulting people at will, and they know they won't face any discipline because of the policies the school district had to institute at the point of Federal agent guns. Treyvon Martin was suspended from school after being caught with stolen jewelry, instead of expelled and referred to police for indictment.

It is my hope that this EO starts us on the long road to overturning Griggs vs Duke Power.

First, obviously don't give Disney money. Shouldn't really have to say that, but you never know.

Second, hold off on setting sail if you were planning to in the first place. The first 3 episodes were ok. Kind of boring, not a lot happened. Very similar to how the first couple of episodes in the first season were slow and kind of boring too, but the difference here is that there is supposedly big time skips between each set of 3 episodes. So unlike in S1 where the slow beginning was building up to something, it's hard to see how multiple disconnected sets of 3 episodes could be building up to anything.

But so far, I'm not as enthusiastic as I was with S1. There are several really awkward and just odd scenes with the blonde ISB chick and the tryhard security guard, Mon Mothma's daughter's wedding, and Cassian being basically sidelined for most of the whole 3 episodes. The big standout character from S1, Luthen Rael has much less screen time unfortunately, though he does get a cool moment.

As far as woke goes, there is a very hamfisted plot point about some of the people from S1 being on the run from the Empire and working odd jobs on another planet. The Empire is doing a census sweep and there are some clunky and obvious references to being 'undocumented' and 'illegals'. They just couldn't help themselves.

S1 was good enough to me that I'm willing to extend them a little bit more rope, but the cracks are starting to appear. Giving the male leads less screen time, focusing on random relationship nonsense, injecting some real world political claptrap, no real major story hook yet apart from references to the Ghormans.

The whole experience was very mid. If it's being set up for a really great payoff, that's one thing. But the show appears to be, if not yet digging it's own grave, it definitely has a shovel in hand. I'm gonna wait to see what it does with it, but if you were planning on giving S2 a try, my advice at least is to wait.