As we observe the insanity all around us, we struggle to understand what has happened to a portion of our country.
What are these people thinking?
Or are they not thinking at all?
We have women inexplicably willing to die to support murderous illegals, leaving their children without a mother. We have men and women willing to risk years in prison (or even death) in support of people and movements that are completely contrary to everything our country was founded upon.
How did we get to this point?
What is going on?
Over the past few weeks, I came across three posts in various places. Each one offers a thought-provoking look at what has happened to the people around us over the past several years.
I hope you will find these as helpful as I did.
People As Large Language Models
Here is the content of one tweet by Devon Eriksen on X.
A vast number of humans, probably a majority, aren’t people.
They are large language models.
I’m not saying this as a generality, as a clever or funny way of saying, “they are stupid”.
No. I mean something very concrete and specific, and there are a lot of people who appear very intelligent, maybe even win awards for writing good poetry or something, who are nevertheless not people, not fully sapient, just a large language model walking around in a human body.
First, you have to understand what a large language model is.
It’s a computer (organic or inorganic), which has been trained on a data set consisting solely of language (written or spoken), and rewarded for producing language that sounds like the data set, and is relevant to a prompt.
That’s all there is in there.
This is why ChatGPT and Grok lie to you constantly.
It’s not because they are somehow just indifferent to the truth — they actually do not understand the concept of “truth” at all.
For something to be a “lie”, or an “inaccuracy”, there has to be a mismatch between the meaning of words, and the state of reality.
And there’s the critical difference. You see, in order to identify a mismatch between the state of reality, and the meaning of a sentence, you have to have a model of reality.
Not just one model, of language.
This is why Grok and ChatGPT hallucinate and tell you lies. Because, for them, everything is language, and there is no reality.
So when I say someone is a large language model, I do not mean he is “stupid”. He might be very facile at processing language. He might, in fact, be eloquent enough to give great speeches, get elected president, win the Nobel Peace Prize, and so on.
What I mean is that humans who are large language models do not have a robust world-object model to counterweight their language model. They are able to manipulate symbols, sometimes adroitly, but they are on far shakier ground when trying imagine the objects those symbols represent.
Which brings us to this woman.
Most conservatives understand her behavior in terms of concepts like “suicidal empathy”, or “brainwashing”, or an “information bubble”, interpreted as reasons why she is delusional, but the truth is far worse than that.
To delusional is to have an object model of the world that is deeply and profoundly wrong. But to have an object model of the world that is deeply and profoundly wrong… you have to have one in the first place.
To sapient humans, words are symbols, grounded in object model of reality, that we use to communicate ideas about that reality. We need those words because we don’t come equipped with a hologram projector, or telepathic powers.
But for another type of human, that object model isn’t very large or robust at all. It consists only of a grass hut or two with a few sticks of furniture, and it can never be matched up with the palaces in the air which she weaves out of words.
And so, to her, there is no reality. Or at least very little.
Reality consists only of her and her immediate surroundings in time and space, and words referring to anything bigger or more complicated are not descriptions of reality… they are magic spells which will make other humans drop loot or give her social approval.
You cannot correct her worldview with contradictory evidence, because there is no worldview to correct.
You cannot confront her with the logical inconsistencies in her worldview, because her object model doesn’t actually have any, it’s not complex enough for that.
The relevant parts of her world-object model can be summed up as follows:
“If I say Goodthing, I get headpats and cookies from all the people like me.”
That model is simply not big or complicated enough to contain notions like self-defense or vehicular assault. She has no theory of mind for a man whose job includes violence. She cannot explain or predict his behavior.
It is too far away from her daily experience to fit into her reality at all.
And if she can’t imagine things like these, how can she possibly imagine concrete meanings for vast and complex ideas like demographic replacement, culture shift, and western civilization?
This is not about intelligence or lack of it. This is about what her brain is trained to do.
Her upbringing, education, and life did not force, or even encourage, her to develop a robust world-object model. It wasn’t necessary for her to get safety, approval, or cookies. She just had to be glib.
So it really didn’t matter if she had an IQ of 125, or whatever, because if she did, then she was just an IQ-125-large-language-model, and only used that brain capacity for writing clever poetry, and saying things that aligned her to her local social matrix.
She couldn’t actually understand the world no matter how smart she was, because her brain was trained up wrong.
I don’t know if this is correctable, or if there was some critical developmental phase that was missed, but it doesn’t matter, because once the LLM-humans are adults, they won’t sit still for corrective therapy, percussive or not.
What’s important is that they can’t be taught things. They can be programmed to repeat stuff, and if you win a culture war, you can even program them to say the sensible stuff. But even then, they will just be saying it for headpats and cookies. They will never truly understand the sense of what they are repeating, because they don’t understand things.
They are just Large Language Models.
And we have to figure out some way to take the vote away from them.
Projection Worldview From the Liberal Mind
Todd Chase:
What you are seeing inside the modern liberal mind is not independent thought. It is projection stacked on top of projection until it becomes a worldview. Everything they accuse others of is exactly what they are doing themselves. Fascism, hatred, authoritarianism, extremism. None of these labels originate from observation. They originate from internal guilt and ideological insecurity.
Liberals no longer argue ideas. They chant labels. They move as a mob, not as individuals. Once a belief becomes emotionally fused to identity, reason becomes irrelevant. At that point, disagreement is treated as evil rather than difference. This is how cult psychology forms. The individual dissolves into the group, and the group demands constant reinforcement through outrage and moral panic.
Projection is the fuel. By calling everyone else Nazis, they avoid confronting their own authoritarian instincts. By labeling dissent as dangerous, they justify silencing it. By declaring themselves morally superior, they excuse any behavior that would otherwise be indefensible. This is not intelligence. It is narcissism reinforced by group approval.
History is full of movements like this. Jim Jones did not start with poison. He started with moral certainty. He convinced his followers that everyone outside the group was evil, corrupted, and dangerous. Once that belief was locked in, the group no longer needed evidence or restraint. The same psychological mechanics are visible now, amplified by social media and political rhetoric.
A society cannot function when one side abandons reason and replaces it with projection and fanaticism. When people stop thinking and start chanting, they do not become righteous. They become dangerous.
The Truth is Hard
Minnesota as a Systems Failure: How NGOs process dissent until reality no longer matters
Lastly, we have a lengthy excerpt from Data Republican.
(Note from Sallie – Nick Shirley is the young man who exposed the Minnesota Somali fraud.)
In my upcoming book (preorders open next week), I argue that late-stage empires do not fail because they are weak or poorly intentioned. They fail because they become autopoietic.
Autopoiesis is a term from systems theory. It means this: a system responds to reality only through the constraints of its own internal organization.
You’ve almost certainly encountered autopoietic institutions, even if you didn’t have a name for them:
- A corporation where middle management defines OKRs that have no relationship to customers, yet performance reviews insist everything is “on track.”
- A bureaucracy that measures success by compliance with procedure rather than outcomes.
- A late Soviet state in which leadership was reassured by reports everyone knew were false, but which could no longer be contradicted without threatening the system itself.
Autopoietic systems lose the capacity for the environment to redefine their purpose. Inputs still arrive, but they are reinterpreted until they are compatible with the system’s existing outputs. Feedback loops close. Contradictions are absorbed. External signals stop producing corrective changes in internal behavior.
At that point, the system is no longer adaptive relative to its original purpose. It becomes self-referential. It is capable of internally justified expansion without reference to external success.
That’s a long-winded way to explain that none of these institutions were lying in the usual sense. They were maintaining equilibrium.
This is the key point: autopoiesis becomes pathological when stability is prioritized over external correction.
All long-lasting institutions drift toward it. Systems seek equilibrium and optimize for survival. Over time, survival becomes flattened as preserving internal coherence rather than fulfilling an external purpose. Once that happens, the institution closes itself off from external falsification.
The system no longer asks, Is this true?
It asks, Is this compatible with what we already produce?
The current unrest in Minnesota is an example of an order that has reached equilibrium through mutual dependency between antagonistic subsystems.
After the Cold War, the Western world organized itself around a single moral injunction: Never again. Never again fascism. Never again totalitarianism. Never again a unified ideology capable of subordinating it to a single vision of man.
To prevent another Nazi Germany or another Soviet Union, the post–Cold War order built immunity to totalitarian ideologies.
Grand narratives were treated as dangerous. Politics was re-engineered away from totalizing visions and towards norms and institutional mediation.
For a time, this worked.
But Marxism could not simply vanish in the West. It was too culturally embedded, too intertwined with labor and academia. At the same time, the system could not tolerate permanent insurgency. Thousands of bombings, riots, and underground cells per year were incompatible with stability. That level of disorder threatened the system’s own survival.
An honest reckoning with Marxism as a coherent rival risked reopening the same ideological conflict the post–Cold War order had been designed to avoid.
So, instead of crushing Communist subversives, the system adapted.
Dissent was absorbed into civic infrastructure: NGOs, foundations, advisory boards, grant programs, legal advocacy, compliance regimes, and professionalized activism. Radical energy was translated into careers and metrics.
The result is a structural inversion. The Western order that was constructed to neutralize Communism now depends on its managed presence to generate legitimacy. At the same time, contemporary revolutionary movements depend on the same institutions they once sought to overthrow; for funding, protection, and survival.
I name the two classes of NGOs active in the Western society:
(At this point, I removed a large portion that can be read on her X post. It digs into the meat quite a bit so I encourage you to read it over there.)
The Terminal Condition
An autopoietic system becomes increasingly fragile because it can no longer correct itself relative to external goals. At its terminal stage:
- It cannot recognize external falsification.
- Contradictory evidence is reclassified until it fits existing narratives.
- It cannot exit its own feedback loops.
And it increasingly trades competence for survival. Truth itself becomes a liability if it threatens institutional coherence.
This is why a single individual with a phone was able to outperform an entire legacy media ecosystem.
Nick Shirley succeeded because he was outside the system.
He could respond directly to reality.
The system could only respond to itself.
I hope this helps you understand a little better the insanity around us that must be defeated, no matter how painful the process is. It is quite literally us or them. There is no way to co-exist any longer. Sobering, but true.
