Jeff Crowell

Imperfect Follower of Christ / Retired IT Professional / I live in Chicago but am a child of Boston.

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

I am not a big soccer fan but the drama in the World Cup has been unreal… and Mexico vs England ramped it up even farther than I thought possible. Amazing!

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

Happy 250th birthday to the USA! I am so grateful for the founding fathers and their vision!

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

Such a great night watching @thirdday on stage in Chicago tonight! They put in a fantastic show! Go see them if you can this year!

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

Happy Easter everyone! Thanks be to our Lord Jesus Christ who returned from the dead to offer us eternal life with God!

Matthew 28:5-9 NIV - 5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”
8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

I am so excited for this! Can’t wait to see pictures and hear from the team about what they will see on this mission!

[Ryan Caton @dpoddolphinpro]

ARTEMIS II: I asked the crew if there were any features of the moon they were most excited to see, personally & technically.

Commander Reid Wiseman: "[...] Human eyes have never ever seen that before. That's cool."

🎥 @NASA | 📷 Myself

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

Happy Opening Day everyone! Let’s go ⁦@RedSox⁩!!

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

Do you remember when you joined X? I do! #MyXAnniversary

Unreal to me I signed up that long ago!

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

Great article here on the origins of individual politics based on the definition of self. I've always considered myself conservative (lower case 'c'!) with some liberal leanings but in James' definition I believe I am liberal (lower case 'l'!)... but in truth I believe my discovery of myself has led me to who I am as a child of God (which is obviously a core tenant of the received self).

"Put another way that’s even more to the point, I’m claiming Conservative politics is what you get from people whose philosophy of self is a Received Self, which they extend to others in the name of proper social ordering for people like themselves. Liberal Politics is what you get from extending a Discovered Self philosophy of selfhood as the proper organizing principle of society for everyone. Leftism is what you get when the philosophy of selfhood abandons reality for self-definition, proceeding from a Self-defined Self, as Deneen partly rightly shudders at. Nearly everything else proceeds from there, and from this picture most of the world opens up to us with unprecedented clarity."

Man With Three Faces: Politics, Pathology, and the Modern Selves https://t.co/SKUJxNCK0m via @NewDiscourses

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

They said they came for Canadian tears and here they are! 🇺🇸 is golden again!

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

Just ordered my copy! Christmas will come early this year! 😀

[DataRepublican (small r) @DataRepublican]

Hardcover preorder links are live. I’ll share more information on tonight’s and tomorrow's livestreams.

We intentionally partnered with a smaller independent publisher because it allowed us to keep the book intact... no edits to dilute the message, no compromises on content. Independent publishing comes with higher production costs, especially for hardcovers, but it also guarantees full creative freedom.

There’s a more affordable non-signed edition available as well.

If you’re choosing where to order, Amazon is an option, but purchasing through Passage directly supports independent distribution and helps strengthen alternatives to the corporate chains.

Foreword by Edward “Big Balls” (@as400495), a brilliant young man.

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

This is an important point. Playing the victim card is beneath the dignity of free individuals in the US. We all need to stop that as it just perpetuates the group dynamic and furthers the communist agenda. We know that now so we need to do our part to stop the division of us as citizens.

[James Lindsay, anti-Communist @ConceptualJames]

It is not just racism. It is Communism expressed through racist framing. That's a very different thing. It almost seemed like people were ready and able to understand it back in 2021, but we've regressed.

If you want to be serious about it, the targets are
1) The Communist (oppressor/oppressed) logic of group-based identification and struggle;
2) The disparate impact doctrine of civil rights law.

If you whine and cry about it being "just racism" without addressing (2), you're just stepping into your pre-scripted role to advance (1), written by your enemies to use YOU to conquer you.

The point of Communist oppressor/oppressed (Manichean conflict) logic is to create an increasingly self-conscious fight between two identity groups until a final calamitous rupture point. As Marx and Engels put it in the Communist Manifesto, it is to arrive at a point where the fight ends either in the revolutionary reconstitution of the society at large or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

The ability for people like Wu (who is just doing a Maoism with race here) to get away with this ultimately boils down to an annoying cultural acceptance of disparate impact that's even more ultimately based on its de facto and even de jure codification in law.

When the Civil Rights Act (CRA) was passed in 1964 on the bedrock of the 14th Amendment, there was no racial preferencing in the text of the law. In 1971, SCOTUS decided in Griggs v. Duke Power that de facto discrimination can be treated as though it is occurring even when there's no evidence of discriminatory intent if there is a disparate impact (inequity by group identity) in the outcome of some employment circumstance.

Specifically, Duke Power Co. had an aptitude test for management roles and proportionally fewer black people than white people passed the test, creating a "disparate impact" (inequity) in outcomes thus access to management jobs. No evidence of discrimination or discriminatory intent by Duke Power Co. could be identified, but SCOTUS decided that the test operates in a de facto discriminatory way, for which Duke Power Co. could be held to account under CRA.

This logic, which is ultimately a Soviet-Communist injection of "actual equality" (equity) logic into our discrimination law has expanded ever since and has gone on to be codified in the law itself since. Now, if there is a disparate impact where some group does worse on average than whites, who are held as the societal standard, that group can legally and socially claim discrimination and win.

That is, the United States Congress passed a law that was meant to prevent racial discrimination, inter alia, and it was immediately turned into a Communist oppressor/oppressed weapon that we've never actually rejected. The entire DEI industry (Soviet-era korenizatsiya and raznoobraziya repackaged for American identity categories as sub-ethnicities) rests on this bogus foundation. To this day, we celebrate the law for what it was supposed to be and suffer under what Communists managed to turn it into against our own interests and society.

Because whites are held up as the societal standard against which this program runs, and for other reasons, the manifestation of this program is the actual institutional racism and justification for individual and structural racisms against whites. In the Soviet language, whites in America (and Europe and the Commonwealth) have replaced the "Great Russians" in the parallel program in Soviet Union or the Han Chinese in Mao's adaptation of it to the Chinese circumstance. What we call "white supremacy culture" or even just "whiteness," they called "Great Russian chauvinism" in USSR and "Han chauvinism" in China.

In typical "your enemies' reaction is your real action" fashion, this genuine multi-level anti-white racism in society generates a white victimhood mentality that Communist agitation will guide into an aggrieved white racial consciousness (because they are actually being made victims of an unjust system, and moreover because it's happening on a point in an issue where whites by and large rejected racial consciousness only to have that thrown back in their faces).

But this means that the total quantity of aggrieved racial consciousnesses in direct conflict with one another goes up, and the Communist agenda item of creating mass self-aware group-based conflict where both sides have a pseudo-legitimate claim to victimhood succeeds. The issue (race) isn't the issue for the Communists behind this; the issue is the intractable conflict of group-versus-group, self-conscious of their identities as hard-done-by victim groups (gateway to the revolution).

The way this knot gets untangled is not through culture warring or competitive victimhood, white against black against Asian against Hispanic. It gets untangled by filing strategic lawsuits that end up with SCOTUS overturning the disparate impact doctrine then appealing to the level playing field as the moral high ground of the land to marginalize this Woke oppressor/oppressed crap as manipulative, weak, and beneath our dignity as Americans and human beings. It cannot be won by sacrificing our dignity as Americans and human beings to play in the mud of aggrieved racial consciousness like the Communists want us to.

This process, happily, has already begun. SCOTUS has already ruled correctly on the issue with college admissions, and while the colleges are now putting up a fight, they'll eventually lose it if we keep our eyes clear and keep going (more lawsuits, more cultural appeal to the real moral high ground here). Harmeet Dhillon in the Office of Civil Rights at the DOJ understands this issue and fight clearly and is delivering strong, strategic, consistent wins, as are some top-notch law firms that are really in the game now where they weren't a decade ago.

Earlier, I said that white people are being victimized here by an unjust institutional and cultural system that has accepted Soviet ethnic logic against itself. The question is who white people are being victimized by. Is it "POC" or is it Communists?

The answer is that it is Communists.

To get this wrong and act as though it is "POC" is an invitation to racial warfare, tribalism, and destruction of the American way, just as the Communists want. To understand it correctly, and thus to fight it correctly, is to evade the Communist racialist conflict trap and to take strategic, decisive action that actually gets us out of this nightmare before it destroys us.

Senator Lee is right about his second point, Americans reject this racialist framing, so the question is why so many are eagerly stepping into it when the winning path of leaving it behind is already open to us? Clicks? Content? Stupidity? Laziness? Complicity? Because victimhood feels good and cathartic even if the cost is civilization itself?

I don't know, but it really pisses me off. We actually know what's going on here and can choose to do the right thing instead of the wrong things.

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

@DataRepublican @wasatchdotco Delivered just in time for the big game! Hoping to toast a Patriots victory Sunday!

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

@DataRepublican @wasatchdotco Just placed my order! Help support a great family business and one of the best follows on X in @DataRepublican!!

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

This is an important explanation. These phrases are so tiresome but it is necessary to call them out and explain what they are and why they are wrong. Otherwise we’ve just admitted defeat.

[James Lindsay, anti-Communist @ConceptualJames]

Let's talk about the opening part of this statement: "nobody is illegal on stolen land." We can break it down, but we should also know what it is. What we are looking at is Chinese-style political sloganeering called "tifa" (提法).

Communist communications ever since Mao took over China (and the CCP before that) almost always follow this kind of formulation, called 提法 (tífǎ), which literally translates as "watchwords" or "slogans." Literally, it means to lift up or present or highlight the core message or political principle in play through a charged slogan.

The purpose of the sloganeering is actually to do a kind of political engineering through carefully selected and weaponized words that are easily memorable and that hijack the critical thinking faculties of the people who both hear and repeat them so they'll advance the Party line.

You can think of tifa quite literally as a form of "discourse engineering" with the intent of doing political engineering or political warfare more or less by hijacking people's brains through mystifying slogans. (Mystification is like a more powerful form of confusion, akin to having been put under a spell.)

In his amazing analysis of the CCP in the early 1950s, just after Mao took power (in October 1949), psychologist Robert Jay Lifton referred to what amounts to tifa as "thought-terminating clichés." That is, they're slogans (or clichés) that have the power to turn off your ability to think clearly about what's being said and implied and to just go along with the political messaging rather than to question it.

The mechanisms of these political warfare tools are mystification and rhetorical entrapment. Mystification is overriding critical thinking with carefully constructed falsehoods and framing. Rhetorical entrapment occurs when there's no easy way to disagree with the framing (think, "black lives matter" or "Christ is king" (as the Groypers use it), both of which are examples of tifa).

The mystification part is a process of using carefully constructed falsehoods presented as truisms that undermine the critical thinking process. That is, the statements can be seen as "obviously" true in a particular way that disguises how they are false in another way. For example, black lives obviously matter, but supporting the organization is something people should not do.

The statement "nobody is illegal on stolen land" is very sophisticated as tifa because it contains three mystifications in just six words:

1) "Nobody is illegal" confuses the distinction between being a human being of basic human dignity and being a citizen of a country or legal visitor there;
2) "Stolen land" confuses the legitimacy of the country in question;
3) The idea of being able to be legal or illegal if the country itself is not legal because it is "stolen land." This is distinct from the idea of the land itself being stolen because it conceptually bridges the concept of legality and legitimacy of the country.

As you can tell, breaking down and explaining the failures of all three parts of this mystification (demystification) is both challenging and exhausting, and it takes so much space that most people will not engage with it due to its length (which will be three orders of magnitude greater (5000-6000 words) than the tifa itself (6 words) to explicate fully and two orders of magnitude greater (600-800 words) just to barely articulate). Raise these by another order of magnitude of effort or two for the argument that will follow the attempt to demystify.

The point is that to fully engage a six-word tifa through explanation, discussion, and argument to try to break someone free of it might take 50-100 thousand words worth of effort by the time all is said and done. (Another example: "trans women are women"; look how much effort that one has taken!)

This example of tifa also contains two rhetorical traps that derive from the first two mystifications:
A) It dares critics to say that people themselves are illegal (illegitimate) because of a political circumstance, thus replacing a legalistic fact with a moral assertion, one that is difficult to litigate without considerable expertise and that might still lose on emotional appeal ("empathy");
B) It lures critics into litigating the legality of the establishment of the nation in question, which undermines the justified presumption of authority in the national concept.

These rhetorical traps not only put critics in a bad, weak, and likely losing position from the start, but they also invite adopting a reactionary or chauvinistic stance as the only possible reply (e.g., "we aren't colonizers; we're conquerors" or "illegals are illegitimate"). This feeds the strategic principle of "your target's reaction is your real action" upon which these manipulative movements gain the most ground.

In short, tifa like this hijacks the capacity to understand the situation correctly in a succinct, repeatable phrase even Billie Eilish can repeat in about a second and a half (confuses and mystifies) while arranging a sophisticated psychological and public opinion trap that is mostly lose-lose-lose for those who would object.

Notice that through the application of tifa as a form of political warfare (public opinion warfare, specifically), any idiot (including the average Billie Eilish fan) can ensnare any good-faith actor in this very sophisticated political warfare device even without understanding in the slightest how it works, dragging them into either confusion or arguments meant to be fought on losing ground for the good-faith critic. You don't need a sophisticated political warfare operator to make this happen.

Furthermore, notice that any idiot who falls for the tifa here will actually repeat it, making the slogan campaign viral so that it is mostly being fought out not by experts but by masses of laypeople who know there's a fight but who aren't properly equipped to deal with it. This is why it is an example of "public opinion warfare" as one of the CCP's "three warfares" doctrine styles.

As summarized by the RAND Corporation: "Tifa have four identifying characteristics: (1) They are politically laden and stated verbatim, (2) they extend along a clear line of authority, (3) they are distributed to official party organs, and (4) they characterize or resolve a dialectical contradiction between competing ideas in the CCP."

Engaging with this kind of slogan, as we must, brings critics into a "dialectical space" that's roughly on the level of the average idiot who can argue emotively or even just repeat the slogan as a kind of verbal cudgel (for those watching) rather than genuinely engaging. We might call this the "Reeeeee! Effect," and we all know it works very well. Tifa creates the "Reeeeee! Effect."

Since the late 1960s, almost all "New Leftist" activism in the West runs on a Maoist-Marxist engine, including the heavy use of tifa sloganeering as a form of rhetorical and political warfare. Most of what we engage in today with their B.S. rhetoric is tifa.

So these "thought-terminating clichés" (tifa) are very powerful and sophisticated political warfare tools that we all encounter every day. The only way to beat them is to identify them for the manipulations they are and explain them as best we can so that people are more likely to identify them and less likely to fall for them, and also to help people out of the ones they're already caught in and under the spell of.

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

@drakemayeloverr That’s a staple Josh McDaniels goal line play. Seen it dozens of times with Faulk and White over the years.

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

@RealTraderJill Music is such an underrated part of any movie. It can create an emotional response in me even more than dialogue. This is a great piece!

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

And the @Patriots are back in the AFC Championship game! We’re back everyone!

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

@mattvanswol I have been reading Proverbs lately and there are many instances where truth and even rebuking someone is shown to be good… truth is always the best way!

Proverbs 28:23 NIV
Whoever rebukes a person will in the end gain favor rather than one who has a flattering tongue.

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

If you are wondering what is going on in Iran, and why mainstream media in the US doesn’t seem to care, this is a great read!

[Professor Charles Xavier @PezeshkiCharles]

@walterkirn I wrote this which explains why.
https://t.co/NZ7absIh3k

[Jeff Crowell @JeffreyPCrowell]

@PezeshkiCharles @walterkirn If you are wondering what is going on in Iran, and why mainstream media in the US doesn’t seem to care, this is a great read!