The Patriarchy is Projection

Rant warning. Read at your own risk.

We don’t live in a patriarchy. Once, we did, at least in a de jure sense. Women have long possessed a measure of de facto power through their husbands and sons. However, in my own lifetime we have lived in something else. I won’t call it a matriarchy, because it isn’t quite that. Rather, today we live in a society dedicated to fulfilling all the fanciful wishes of women. Interestingly enough, women do not like living under a matriarchy despite all the feminist calls for such, and so we have system that outwardly resembles a patriarchy, with superficial trimmings of male enfranchisement. Yet this only exists insofar as it serves the interests of women.

Consider the male artists, actors, and otherwise for whom women swoon. Consider the political leaders, corporate executives – the very people feminists claim to loathe the most – for whom women maintain affection and attraction. Next to this we have the so-called ‘body positivity’ movement, which seeks to render all women equally beautiful. This is, of course, a farce – something all women know but rarely admit. To prove their points about fat beauty, they will pull a model like Ashley Graham out of their proverbial hats. And, true, Ashley Graham is a very attractive woman – especially given her weight. But the fallacy is assuming she represents the norm for her BMI. It would be like saying all skinny women are the equivalent of Uma Thurman in her prime.

For every Ashley Graham, there are dozens of Lena Dunhams: overweight, slovenly, disgusting trollish women whose man-hate, stupidity, and vacuousness renders them unfit for any kind of meaningful companionship. We are supposed to accept them as equal to beautiful, intelligent, and kind-hearted women. Consider body positivity as the participation trophy system for female beauty. And just as everybody knows the participation trophies are bullshit – but ardently pretend otherwise – we all (including the women) know that equality of beauty is a myth.

So why does it exist? It makes some women happy to pretend they are beauty queens, I suppose. It makes them think they deserve a Brad Pitt millionaire with a Lamborghini just for existing. It gives them a target to rage against, too. All the men who aren’t interested in them aren’t bypassing their affections because they are overweight, or mean-spirited, or possessing of various personality flaws. Instead, the fault is with men who are fatist, or something to that general effect. And naturally, should a man of roughly their same level of attractiveness try to get with them… well, how dare he! All men are shallow pigs, naturally.

But the phenomenon of catering to female delusions is far greater than merely enabling that particular movement. We are supposed to see the raised pink fists, the pussy hats, the women dressing up as giant vaginas as somehow changing the world by their mere presence. All the millions of marching Starbucks drinkers; all the hopey-changey bologna spouted by the feminists achieves nothing, but we are supposed to believe otherwise. As if a woman chanting “I am fierce” somehow makes it true. Various vaguely female trolls say “this pussy grabs back” as if Donald Trump has some kind of interest in having sex with them (itself a delusion). None of this means anything in the great political struggles of our age, but the media ardently pretends otherwise.

A more accurate headline might be “a million cat ladies descend on Washington to complain about something they can’t do shit about.”

A woman can say any idiotic, delusional thing, and a dozen white knight, thirsty soy boys will pop out of the woodwork to confirm her idiocy. This, in turn, enables such women to increasingly distance themselves from reality, as they are insulated from its effects by hordes of pathetic liberal man-children hoping for a taste of radical feminism’s hairy table scraps. Left wing men are busy ruining women, and patting themselves on the back for how enlightened they are, sucking up to the bizarre, increasingly disconnected demands of hairy, overweight radfems.

It goes beyond the radfems too, however. Every TV commercial is catered to women, pretty much. Watch how the commercials shit on men. Clearly all men are idiots who can’t drive, can’t ask for directions, and need a Strong Empowered Woman to tell them everything. And oh, by the way, here’s an overpriced product shipped from China that proves how Strong and Empowered you really are. For a bunch of Lefty Commies, they are certainly Capitalist enough when it suits them. Some women are agitating from government-funded tampons, because clearly women need taxpayers to fund their hygiene products. You didn’t see a drive for government-funded jock straps for men, last time I looked. But as usual, a horde of thirsty Lefty virgin soy boys will descend and tell the rest of us that not funding tampons for every woman is sexist. And probably transphobic – after all, even transwomen who don’t need them should be provided them at my expense.

When female college enrollment exceeds that of males by a wide margin, college is nonetheless sexist because not enough women are enrolling in STEM programs, despite every male STEM guy slobbering over the opportunity to bang a female engineer. Go figure that one. Mattress girl carts around a mattress, then shoots porn on the damned thing, and demands national recognition for it. Some idiot Lefty men pop out of the woodwork to tell us that college rape rates are worse than Somalia. Yeah, whatever. Delusion after delusion. But still we cater to them, right? Because what women want takes priority over everything – including reality.

Put another way, society is treating women like spoiled brats – and it continues to spoil them – and people wonder why we have screeching hags and weirdos in vagina costumes running around spouting off bullshit about how they identify as a genderqueer catkin, and the Donald Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler and Genghis Khan rolled into one.

Before my female readers go off into a rage – the usual disclaimer: not all X are like that, etc, etc… But even you have to know how many men are essentially slobbering soy slaves to pretty much anybody with a vagina (and some who don’t even have one of those). We have wussified men who just can’t say “no” to a woman. And on the rare occasion a man grows enough testicular fortitude to say no, women who are unaccustomed to hearing it will fly into a rage. Sexism! Misogyny!

And the thing is, this behavior doesn’t lead to an actual matriarchy. It leads right back to a patriarchy. Think about it. Idiot soy boys aren’t reproducing – and, indeed, are clamoring for the importation of their replacements. I.e. they are arguing for the importation of actual patriarchs from various shitholes (thanks, Donald Trump) around the world. Let’s take more from Somalia and Pakistan, right? Bring back honor killings, because nothing says “I’m for women’s rights” like importing people who like murdering their own female relatives over trivial matters.

Peace, love, hopey-changey-change. And let’s take the world back to the seventh century, while we’re at it. All because some men are too pussified to say “no” to a woman once in a while, on the off chance that one of them might eventually pity him enough to give him a second sexless date. Women, of course, are free to say “no” to men whenever they wish – and indeed are busy recodifying law to make affirmative consent forms every 5 minutes a thing, on the off chance one of them actually gets caught in a situation where she might be drunk enough to be in a soy boy’s bedroom.

It’s all delusion. Guns feel bad. Ban them! But then we have some idiot who silently stands in front of a podium someplace becoming some kind of idiotic trend, and women delude themselves into thinking it’s some kind of existential philosophical healing experience. Whatever. It’s like that scene in Office Space where the couple goes to the ‘occupational hypnotherapist’ for relationship advice, and the girlfriend later admits the whole thing was bullshit and she was just cheating on her man. She knew the whole time that it was all bullshit, but played along anyway – presumably because she had to be seen as trying to make the relationship work, or at least it had to be his fault that it failed. She, after all, did everything she could, right?

All of society is geared toward catering to women. From the ads on TV, to the stupid happy music and bright colors of Youtube commercials. If men still make more money than women (after you control for hours worked, educational attainment, etc…), they certainly don’t get to actually spend it.

I am having a house built, and I was amused by the emphasis put on countertops, cabinet door styles, and water faucet designs. Meanwhile, I asked about the actual materials used in the construction of the cabinets, and the local design center workers looked at me like I was insane. People would routinely spend $10,000 on trendy cabinet doors, never once caring that the boxes and end panels were cheap particle board. I asked for plywood end panels, and according to them, I was the first they had ever met there to request this. It took them two weeks just to find pricing on it (it wasn’t bad). But that just shows you that even when you build a house, the target demographic is female. Everything is about style, trendiness, etc… A man comes in, and asks structural questions, and everybody has to look up the answers because who gives a damn if the cabinet boxes fall apart when they get wet – but everybody needs a name brand quartz countertop with some fancy cabinet door made of imported wood from… wherever.

Even something like the traditionally male space of fast cars ultimately caters more to women. Most people don’t buy Ferraris because they are Italian automobile enthusiasts, they buy them to signal wealth to cater to the desires of women. Pleasing women is at the core of our society, it’s embedded in everything. You don’t see a campaign to buy your man beer, to give him plenty of his favorite sexual favors, or any of that. And if he asks, it’s probably sexist or woman-hating. Maybe it’s even rape.

A woman can berate her man in public, and nobody bats an eyelash. In one experiment, it was even noted that a woman physically attacking her man was applauded. The reverse, of course, was seen as woman-hate and was immediately decried.

The amazing thing isn’t that all this is happening, per se. Anybody who has a clue about sexual dynamics can see how something like this could come about. Women are the limiting factor in reproduction. One man and a thousand women could repopulate the species. The reverse means extinction. They have a lock on the right of refusal, save in various uncivilized shitholes. The fascinating thing isn’t that we cater to women as a society – it’s that so many people are deluded into thinking it isn’t happening, that it’s really men who are being catered to; that we live in a patriarchy. That is beyond delusional. It is insane.

But, sadly enough, this insane behavior will eventually make it true. The feel-good hopey-change will ensure that we import plenty of actual patriarchs more than willing to reestablish that kind of society on their own terms. Somehow, I doubt the soy boys will be able to resist them. If, indeed, they even try at all.

The Government is Your Mother, and Mother Knows Best

Some of my readers may already know that I’ve been banned from Twitter. You may not know the reason, however. Some folks were arguing that the word “retarded” should be banned from Twitter discourse. Naturally, I replied that this was retarded. Twitter has apparently sided with those demanding censorship, so let it be known that the social media platform has banned use of this word. Using it results in account suspension.

That’s pretty retarded.

Leftists, and especially journalists, have a propensity for deliberately misunderstanding language. Words have meanings, which can be gleaned partly from the commonly-accepted definitions, and partly from the context in which they were used. Or, put another way, intent matters in communication. Calling something retarded is not an affront to people with Down syndrome, because of the context in which it was used (i.e. not in the presence of, or having anything to do with, people with Down syndrome). To interpret the use of “retarded” this way requires deliberate intent to misunderstand the speaker.

In other words, Leftists who do this are defying the very purpose of language in the first place, which is to communicate. Now, using the word may very well be construed as extremely rude (and, in fact, it was intended to be), but since when is rudeness an offense which requires censorship?

This is where something very interesting happens. You see, to a Leftist, rudeness is an unpardonable sin. If I were, for instance, to refer to a gay man as a “fag” (despite the fact that many use the word to describe themselves), I am being rude. The rudeness must be censored. Leftists presume to be my mother, and to explain to me what words I am, and am not, allowed to use.

Now in the case of my suspension, it can be argued that Twitter is a private entity, and has every right to censor me for whatever reason they wish. And while this is true in a legal and technical sense, it omits the greater point that any nation which does not really believe in freedom of speech in a cultural sense is soon to lose its legal rights to the same. Or, in other words, de facto censorship can easily become de jure censorship. But even if it didn’t, note that North Korea enshrines freedom of speech in its legal documentation. Nobody there is stupid enough to actually try to use it. Nonetheless, Leftists would love to ban the use of words they don’t like at a legal level. Indeed, they salivate over hate speech laws, and the Orwellian policing we see today in (formerly) Great Britain.

It gets much worse than that, though. Take a look at this video created in opposition to the Second Amendment:

The fascinating thing about this video is just how childish and patronizing it truly is. Note the bright colors, the cartoon figures, the sing-a-long verses and Mr. Rogers vibe of the host. This whole thing looks like it was designed for six year olds. This is what the Left thinks of people.

Ana Gasteyer’s argument is, essentially, that if one person does something stupid with a gun, that person has effectively ruined it for the rest of us, and all the guns must be rounded up and taken away, because clearly Americans are unable to handle them. She appoints herself Mom-in-Chief, under which the rest of us are supposed to obey like good little six year olds.

This argument falls flat on its face, for we could easily make the same kind of delusional argument about alcohol and automobiles. Some people drink too much, and then drive their cars, and hurt people. Clearly they have ruined it for the rest of us, ban automobiles and alcohol. Remember the temperance movement? This shares a number of similarities to it. Indeed, it’s a very matriarchal approach to problem solving.

Some people are rude on the internet, ban mean words! Some people commit sex crimes, well… we they’ve clearly ruined sex for everybody, if you want to have sex, please obtain signed consent to continue every 2 minutes. Yet somehow this motherly attitude, this “omg somebody save our kids from the NRA” attitude vanishes the moment somebody coat hangers their child at the local Planned Parenthood abort-o-mat.

Temperance movement mothers would have been horrified by that, at least.

Some time ago, Sarah Hoyt wrote about the matriarchy that she encountered when she first immigrated to the United States. The experience was jolting for her. Feminists presume that we live in a patriarchy, and that men have all the power. Men know better. We possess a great deal of hypothetical power, rather like the Queen of England. But if we actually try to use any of it, it is quickly revealed as meaningless.

After all, if you can’t even call somebody retarded on the Internet, how much power do you really possess?

Leftists want government to be your mother. To put you in time out if you say a mean word to somebody, to take a thing away from everyone if even one person misuses it. To enforce Socialist notions of fairness through a sort of scaled up version of “oh, did you bring enough to share with everyone? No? Then I’m going to take it away!”

Affirmative action is a sort of scaled up participation trophy concept. Oh, it doesn’t matter if you didn’t practice, work out, or any of that. You’re just as good as the people who did! Here, have a trophy! Take a look at medical school admission rates for how this works in the real world:

Note that the lowest tier of black applicant is roughly comparable in acceptance rate to the highest tier of white acceptance. Note, also, that whites aren’t even the worst off here – Asians are. The Asian stereotype of “you be doctor now” has some truth to it. They are likely to have intact families, to work hard, to study hard, and to be dedicated to their work. But sure, affirmative action someone with lower grades and scores, right? Yeah, I’ve never heard anyone say “can I please have the affirmative action doctor?”

But the mother might say “it’s not fair!” And we should hold the phone, drop everything, and move medicine back to accommodate somebody’s feelings about fairness, right? That sounds pretty retarded to me.

No guns for you, share and share alike, don’t say mean words, and go have a time out if you voted for Donald Trump. Or, hell, if you just didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton. After all, she’s a mother too, right? Otherwise you are an internet bully or something.

Thing of it is, even if we accepted the premise that human beings are all little children who need constant supervision, who have no agency of their own, and who must obey their betters in all things… who are the betters? Who constitutes someone worthy of being the mother who knows best? Naturally, Ana Gasteyer clearly thinks of herself this way. And pretty much every teenage SJW or college feminist considers his, her, or xis self qualified for the role, despite having a tendency to abort away their actual children.

They have agency, you see. We do not. We, as in productive adults, must obey college SJWs in all things. They are our mothers, and mother knows best, right? I have no doubt Hillary Clinton saw herself in this light. Certainly some of her emasculated male followers thought of themselves as slobbering man-children.

As far as I’m concerned, they are all retarded. And unlike folks who actually have Down syndrome (some of whom are wonderful, humble, caring people), these people are viciously arrogant about their retardation.

The thing is, mothering is an important part of humanity, but it is not the sole part, nor is it supposed to be done excessively. Otherwise you end up with wussified children who are completely unable to take care of themselves when they grow up. And if you think about it, that does sound like the 47% Mitt Romney lamented about in the 2012 election, people who would never vote for him because the government was, in effect, their mother, taking care of everything for them.

Eating is a good and proper activity. Gluttony is a sin. Having a glass of wine a day is supposedly a benefit to your overall health. Getting plastered every night is likely to destroy your body and send you to the hospital. Today, we have an excess of mothering, both from actual mothers (see: helicopter parents) and from Leftists and the government assuming a motherly role. In effect, Leftists are helicopter parents who, in lieu of actual children, have assumed the role of some kind of global parents over the supposedly-childish hoi polloi. That many of these Leftists are themselves barely removed from childhood might be regarded as a colossal irony.

I’ve long suspected that this motherly activity is actually one of the primary motivators behind the very school shootings lamented about in the video above. I remember several times as a child being disciplined by the school for defending myself against a bully. The policy, you see, was that violence was bad. Therefore, when two kids were seen fighting, both were disciplined the same. No effort was made to determine who was the aggressor. Both were at fault. Leftists view self defense in a similar matter. They are suspicious of it. They don’t actually like it. In their minds, someone who shoots an intruder is as bad as the intruder himself. Perhaps worse, even, because excuses can be made for the bad behavior of the intruder.

Likewise, excuses are made for the bullies. Oh, he’s having problems at home. Oh, he’s black and you’re white, and quite honestly you probably deserve it because your great-great-great grandfather might have owned a slave. You must accept it. No outlet is given for boys, girls are held up as the gold standard, something Christina Hoff Sommers has commented on many times. Add to this a toxic stew of single motherhood, absent fathers, a tendency to over-medicate, and a general cultural malaise… and you have a recipe for boys snapping and going apeshit at school. Not to mention the media gives a twisted sort of fame to the school shooters.

But no, like the helicopter mother who wants to stop her kid from spitting out gum everywhere, as cited in the video above, we should just ban everything for everybody. Forget the reasons why the bad behavior was occurring, just ban the word, or ban the physical object. It’s like the Rotherham rape epidemic. Forget actually protecting the victims and going after the perps, ban talking about it, ban the words.

This has given us a culture of childishness, of never actually growing up. Nothing is ever your fault, because you are seen as a child.

If I was of some protected class, and a recipient of affirmative action largess, I’d be angry. It’s patronizing, it’s saying “oh here, because you can’t win the game on your own, we won’t keep score, and we’ll give you a participation trophy.” No, screw you, I want to win, and losing the game is motivation to do better next time. 

Participation trophy culture is retarded. The government is not your mother, and the fact that Leftists of various stripes think they are qualified to be my parents is profoundly insulting. In this case, ‘mother’ definitely doesn’t know best.

 

Political Children

Well, dealing with a newborn, doing a lot of work, and getting my home fixed up and ready to sell all at the same time is… fun. And by fun, I mean sleep-depriving. But I’m coming up to the end on a lot of my work, which is good. In any event, a lot has happened since I was last blogging here. Of course, my first topic after my hiatus is going to have to be the guns. Specifically, the supposedly spontaneous child protests across the country.

To preface this, I don’t care what a child thinks about political issues any more than I worry about my dog’s opinion of my cooking. This strikes me immediately as similar to the “woke 8 year old” bologna that appeared all over Twitter in the wake of Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton.

 

This is another manifestation of Weaponized Empathy. “It’s for the children” was a tactic employed by the media during the Syrian refugee crisis, often by showing carefully staged bodies of children, or as in one particular example, showing an injured child in an ambulance. In the latter, the child was dirty and bleeding, but journalists still found time to sit him in the otherwise clean ambulance and take a carefully-considered photo to push their political points.

However, today’s tactic is, perhaps, even more insidious. In this case, Progressives are using the gullibility and lack of experience of children to push for their political goals. One individual of some noteriety, whose name escapes me at the moment (it made the rounds on Twitter, if one of my readers has a name please drop it in the comments), mentioned that children are often wiser than their parents on social and political issues. And they are supposedly less gullible, too. And while Democrats want to raise the age required to purchase a gun, they simultaneously want to lower the voting age. Surely there’s no self-interest in that, right? After all, it’s easier to talk a child into Socialism with a basic “it’s not fair” kind of argument.

Look, the fact is children just don’t understand. That’s why they are children, not little adults. They don’t have the life experience to make such weighty decisions yet. The fact that some of them were talked into protesting (I seriously question the spontaneity of these events) doesn’t mean anything. When I was a child, I once threw a ball of watered down toilet paper at the gym teacher, and the other kids laughed and clapped when it happened. Children do a lot of stupid things.

Woke 8 year olds around the world were trashing Trump, right? Just like mommy told them to. Now students are comparing the NRA to the KKK, just like their parents and/or teachers are doing. And so long as they parrot a Leftist agenda, why not, right? I’m sure if a bunch of 8 year olds started protesting abortion, the Left would tell us how the kids are brainwashed or something. The media spin would go in the opposite direction, because according to the media, Left = good, Right = bad.

Hilariously, as a friend of mine pointed out, the children cannot even maintain a level of consistency (because they are children) in their messaging. Take a look at this hilarious example and see if you can spot the contradiction:

 

I don’t care if a child is singing the praises of Donald Trump or comparing the NRA to the KKK. He’s a child. His political opinions are irrelevant. Anybody attempting to cynically use a child’s ill-formed positions in an effort to sell a political agenda is evil. Such people are using our natural instincts to protect and cherish our children in order to sell a political position. Forget the facts, forget the rights of Englishmen. Forget history, forget economics, forget what actually works and what doesn’t. Instead, the message is this: “do what we say, or else you hate children.”

It’s conceptually no different from “you want to push granny off a cliff.” It’s an emotional argument. Pure rhetoric and a form of Weaponized Empathy.

Yesterday my 3 year old wanted a popsicle for breakfast. Because he’s a child. His opinions on nutrition are irrelevant. And so are the opinions of children on the matter of gun ownership and gun control. They are being used as pawns in someone else’s game. And the idiot who said children are less gullible than adults is a liar.

I mean, what’s next at this point? Here’s a list of some unpleasant truths about Progressives and the cynical manipulation of people:

  1. Leftists like mass-immigration from the third world because they believe such people are more gullible, and thus easier to con into Socialism.
  2. Leftists like child-protests, because children rely on popularity and peer pressure more than adults, and are more gullible, thus easy to con.
  3. Leftists want to lower the voting age because the younger you are, figures the Leftist, the easier it is to con you into voting their way.
  4. The lower your economic class, the Leftist figures, the cheaper it is to bribe you into voting their way.

And so on and so forth, ad nauseam.

Everything they do is about more Socialism. And they don’t care what lever they use to move you out of the way of Progress ™. Sad stories about third world refugees failed to move you? Okay, bring out some pictures of dead kids. That didn’t work? Con their own kids into some kind of twisted version of the Children’s Crusade and get them protesting in the street. That didn’t work? How about some woke 8 year olds on Twitter? How about some peer pressure? How about threatening your income?

You have to understand, with these people, the means doesn’t matter. Only the end matters, and the end, as they see it, is Socialism.

This lever failed to move me. It was, in fact, one of the dumbest Weaponized Empathy tactics I’ve seen them deploy in recent days. If we listened to children, everybody would be eating junk food, watching TV, posting on social media, and playing video games basically 24/7.

But what do I know, right? Listen to some 10 year old who was talked into protesting by his teacher saying he could get out of class early. Because that clearly makes sense, right?

Women, Progress, and Automobiles in Space

Folks, I’m tired. I’m cranky. I’m operating off very little sleep and I’ve overbooked myself on work yet again. You’d think I’d learn. Or take a break. Sigh…

But a thread on Twitter caught my attention yesterday, and I couldn’t let it pass without some commentary. And that, in turn, opened up a whole new level of offensive wrongthink. Underneath it is, in this blogger’s opinion, one of the most important issues of our time.

A progressive woman laments how Elon Musk is, in her view, wasting his money launching automobiles into space. Instead, she tells us, he should spend his billions on Flint, a Democrat-run shithole (thanks, Mr. President, I’m using that term a lot more from now on) that can’t even deliver clean water to its residents.

As tired as my newborn has made me in recent days, this is worse. Progressive arguments like this are legion. Instead of using your money for anything else, you should dedicate it all to notions of wealth distribution. Forget your personal desires, your dreams, your aspirations for the very future of mankind itself… instead give everything to politicians.

Dear readers, enough is enough. I’m usually at least somewhat polite on this blog, so take it to heart when I say this. Grasp my full meaning: fuck them all. Toss them out of helicopters, or into woodchippers, or just air drop them into Somalia. I don’t even care anymore. But this is the last straw, folks.

Their short-sighted, Dunning-Kruger infused, elementary school worldview is beyond evil and into a realm of nonsensical mental masturbation. It’s a Lovecraftian horror, except it is inverted. Instead of greater beings beyond our comprehension filling us with horror because of our relative smallness, we have lesser beings whose sheer stupidity and ignorance of all sense is such that to even try to empathize with them causes headaches of massive proportions. To even comprehend such idiocy is horror-inducing.

Not that any of this is new. Back during the days of the Apollo Program, there were plenty of people lamenting that the money that sent a man to the moon would be better spent putting an end to poverty. The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess.

Funnier

 

Another cretinous fool on Twitter explained that Carl Sagan told us not to perform such crazy marketing stunts in space. This esteemed idiot supplied the following quotation:

0e912b80fd62212a51cd9b47e2d163e8

So, what? Only Communists should go to space? Earth is for everybody, but space is for Communists! No Capitalists allowed. I know a lot of folks revere Carl Sagan, but this certainly ranks high on dumb quotes by this guy.

I started noticing a pattern. Most of the detractors of Elon Musk’s little stunt were women. Most of those singing his praises were men. That reinforces an old, but correct notion that women trend more Progressive than men. Look, I know a lot of smart women (Sarah Hoyt comes to mind right away), but at the same time there is something very, very wrong here.

Why are so many women fixated on first-order problems, without any conception of second-order effects? I mean, imagine if the folks at early Intel who pioneered CPU design, had instead donated all of their money to some politically-correct victim class and bowed out? What would benefit poor people more, a few thousand dollars worth of bread, or technological progress that eventually put the entire sum of human knowledge at their fingertips within seconds?

Our intrepid Progressive women cannot imagine the future benefits to everyone, the poor included, of opening up space to mankind. The entire future of our species, the whole universe there waiting for us, and this chick is fixated on Flint’s water supply? It’s maddening! It gives me a headache. It’s exhausting even trying to understand how a human brain could possibly operate that way.

But I see a lot of modern women who have this kind of thought process. Take a look at this feminist whopper:

DVcYqfKWkAEvYsy

 

Her complete inability to understand anything past her own immediate worldview is simply staggering to contemplate. This is extreme solipsism. Does she not understand what men say to each other on a regular basis? My daily conversations with my male friends would send your average feminist woman into conniption fits. They might give her seizures. She claims to want to be treated just like a man, but no woman actually wants this.

So hey, Thales, how is this related to Elon Musk launching a car into space? I’m getting to that.

I started thinking this morning that perhaps we aren’t dealing with an inability to see beyond first-order effects so much as an inability to virtue-signal them rhetorically. It’s rhetorically easy to point to a crazy publicity stunt and call it stupid. It’s rhetorically difficult to demonstrate the larger utility of the affair, the technological milestones SpaceX achieved in the process. It’s rhetorically easy to give a man a fish and say “look at me, I’m a good person for giving this man a fish!” It’s rhetorically difficult to demonstrate how your long-term plan to teach the man to fish will benefit mankind.

Virtue-signalling is subject to the rule of laziness. If there are two ways you can virtue-signal your moral superiority, Progressives will invariably pick the easiest one. Here’s your fish, come back tomorrow for another. Of what possible use is a microchip to a poor person? No cars in space. And why land a man on the moon? What a waste, am I right?

In other words, it’s easy to drop a first-order effect into a rhetorical conversation and ignore all other effects of that decision, as if everything was in isolation. Nothing in the universe works that way.

And for some reason, women appear more vulnerable to this tactic than men. The irony of the no billboards in space comment? It’s usually women who are more consumerist than men. Marketing? Commercials? All targeted toward women. That’s why almost every man is a dofus in TV commercials, and every woman is a wise, sage-like being of feminine supremacy. Who spends all the money? The answer to that is obvious enough. And yet, women trend anti-Capitalist? It makes no sense, until you start looking at everything from a first-order effect perspective. She wants X, and so she buys X without any thought to the greater ramifications… unless, of course, political correctness rears its ugly head, hijacks her mind, and pushes its claptrap. Then it’s save the whales, don’t buy fur, and no automobiles in space. Those, too, are considered without thought for greater ramifications.

Don’t ask me if this is innate to female biology, or just a product of a century or so of Radical Feminist thinking and conditioning, or some combination thereof. I don’t know, and my headache is too great to speculate at the moment. But whatever the cause, I’m tired of it. When I was a kid, I can remember a little optimism left in the world. Not much, for Progressivism was already on the march even then, and had been for a long time. But still, it was worth looking up and thinking “someday, I’m going to achieve something great.”

Not anymore, I guess. You can launch your car into space, and some idiotic denizen of Twitter will stand up and say “laaaaaame, you should have given your money to some Democrats instead. What are you, some kind of racist?”

Woodchipper them all. I don’t even care anymore.

Rumors of My Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

Well, I suppose I owe my readers an explanation for my hiatus these last couple of weeks. Between my daughter keeping me up all night, lack of sleep, heavy workload, a short story project I’m wrapping up, and a remodeling project I probably should have waited to do – but didn’t – yeah, my blogging has suffered somewhat of late.

On top of that, Bitcoin’s big moves have occupied much of my attention recently. I mined a few of them back in 2013, and suddenly they were more than just some paltry pocket change. For what it’s worth, I dumped most of them at around $11,000/BTC. Probably should’ve dumped at the high, but that’s always a hindsight game. Most of the profits are going right into the mortgage balance. Not enough to eradicate it completely, but it certainly took out a big chunk.

I have a tendency to take on too much, and I have a hard time saying no to opportunities. Usually this serves me well, sometimes it bites me in the ass.

In any event, I’ve accumulated a lot of topics I wish to discuss over the next few days. And I may be bringing in a couple of guest bloggers in the near future as well. Long-time reader TripleSphincteredWombat made that suggestion, and I have few folks who have been asking me about it recently.

So in summary, I’m not dead. Rather, I’m just wishing I could get more than 3 or 4 hours of sleep a night.

All Your Base Still Belong to Us

Just shy of a year ago, in cooperation with Tom Kratman and a few others, I put together this bit of memetic homage:

Francis Porretto reminded me of it in a comment this morning. It’s crazy to think that it’s been nearly a year since Trump took office. It has been a year of triggered SJWs, helicopter memes, and media self destruction. The hatred for Donald J. Trump is beyond anything I’ve seen directed at a political figure in my lifetime. Not even Richard “Tricky Dick” Nixon engendered such vitriolic hate.

This, naturally, is all coming from the peace-love-tolerance crowd. Peace-love-tolerance, of course, only applies to political conformists, Overton Window adherents, and proper Socialists. The level of cognitive dissonance demonstrated by the political Left is staggering to witness.

Trump is supposed to be an evil reincarnated Hitler, or something like that. And yet his daughter and grandchildren are Jewish. And, furthermore, he has done something no President has dared to do: called for the move of the American embassy to Jerusalem. Trump was widely hailed as the harbinger of economic apocalypse. Trickle down won’t work, they said. As a businessman he his a bankrupted failure, they claimed. And yet the economic growth of the last year hasn’t been seen since, perhaps, the Reagan administration. They said he wouldn’t last a year before impeachment or resignation, and yet here we are.

The reason for all this is simple. Trump is blunt and open about his beliefs, occasionally to a fault, something that drives the politically correct into conniption fits. With the politically correct Overton Window adherents, all language must be monitored for proper tone, current “in fashion” political jargon, and otherwise. They aren’t illegal aliens, they are undocumented immigrants. They aren’t stupid, they are intellectually challenged. Whatever. In some cases the meanings of PC jargon shift so fast, it is difficult to keep up with them. Cisgender is a great example. Until a couple years ago, I’d never even heard of such a term. Now it’s ubiquitous on social media, added to such SJW jargon as white cisheteropatriarchy.

Trump, meanwhile, calls Haiti a “shithole” and garners a media shitstorm for it. What of it? Haiti is a shithole. Perhaps he was somewhat vulgar and less than presidential in his delivery, but here’s the important question: is he wrong? To the politically correct, appearances matter more than substance. They don’t want to call Haiti a shithole, regardless of the fact that it is one. They say racism, but how can something be racist if it is true? Must we embrace “non-racist” lies in favor of “racist” truth? To the politically correct, that answer is obvious.

Donald Trump has done us one great service, above all other things: he has exposed the politically correct as dishonest, superficial, egotistical liars. #AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs indeed. We have witnessed a year of collective PC meltdown. I don’t know that it is enough to reverse course in America, much less the rest of the world. I remain pessimistic on our long-term future. And we still need that border wall Trump promised us. The illegals must go back. Our immigration system must be radically overhauled. At this point, I’m not sure we’re going to get that.

But in the short term, the PC meltdown has been epic to witness. It’s a thing I never thought I’d see. If, a few years ago, you had told me Donald Trump would run for office, get elected in one of the greatest upsets in political history, and bring journalists to tears on live TV, I’d have laughed in your face.

All Your Base Are Belong to Us.

Government Dependency Breeds Stupidity

Many of my readers may be aware of the fact that, though I live in Florida, I’m pretty well-traveled. My father was in the military, and as a military brat I’ve lived in many different parts of the country, and been to almost all the lower 48 states at some point or another. We spent a couple years in Oregon when I was a teenager, and even back then the law prohibiting citizens from pumping their own gas was in effect. It was one of the stranger features of Oregon.

Now the partial repeal of this law, which only applies to rural areas, has some Oregon residents in a panic. Why, people may just have to get out and pump their own gas! The terror! The horror! I have to wonder if Democrats will get up on podium and tell us that people will die! This is another feature of that parallel (or is it orthagonal?) universe libs live in. Poe’s law may apply to the comments below, but it’s very hard to tell these days.

DSjG8f6UMAMS3bA

 

Either way, this is a very interesting case to dissect. Pumping gas is hardly rocket science, and yet somehow Oregon felt compelled to pass this law, and its partial repeal is engendering resistance. It boggles the mind. How can a people become so dependent as to be unable to pump gas? Never mind the fact that this merely allows for self-service gas stations, it doesn’t mandate them.

Every place I’ve lived has had at least a few bizarre, retarded laws like this one, though. My own Florida has a strange law where liquor cannot be sold between 3AM and 7AM, which is extended in Tampa to 3AM to 11AM on Sundays. On top of that, there used to be a law whereby you could buy a 32Oz and 128oz beer growler, but not a 40oz or 64oz. I am told there is a small town in Texas which has, for reasons I cannot fathom, banned the presence of inflatable gorillas. The specificity of such laws is amusing. You have to imagine there is some kind of story full of human idiocy, corruption, and bureaucratic overreach as to how they came about in the first place.

But Oregon’s law on pumping gas strikes me as one of the most egregious and bizarre of them all. That it has defenders is mystifying to me. I try to think of it in terms of Chesterton’s Fence, but all the reasons I can think of for its existence are ludicrous. Was it another simple make-work scam by the government? Was it a demand for safety that went haywire (the other states get along just fine without such a law). It’s hard to get a clear answer. Probably both, and then some. Either way, the people who erected this particular fence were out of their damned gourds.

It also demonstrates the difficulty of repealing idiotic laws once they’ve taken root. “It will take away jobs,” is the reason the above article cites for where the resistance really comes from, but that is an idiotic assertion. It is the sort of answer that takes into account only first-order effects, avoiding consideration for the fact that these jobs are artificial in nature, sucking productivity from someplace else. It’s a variation of the broken window fallacy. People have “jobs” but aren’t really doing or contributing anything. And they suck down money that could be going somewhere else, someplace actually productive. But now there is a class of people who directly benefit from the law regardless of its lack of utility, and pulling them away from the benefit is like pulling teeth.

It has a similar effect on the citizenry at large. Unaccustomed to pumping gas, you have Oregonians who don’t even know how to do it, and are literally afraid to do it. In some of my earlier writings, I made fun of a guy I saw on the side of the road getting his tire changed by a woman. He’s nothing next to people who say they can’t even pump their own gas. Government dependency is an ugly thing. If the trajectory toward increasing micromanagement of human affairs continues, I wonder if we’ll see a day when wiping your ass requires a special, qualified ass-wiper to do the job. You know, so as to ensure there are no filthy butt cracks in the country, and to provide make-work jobs to some (probably not well-liked) demographic.

Either way, Leftists have lately told us that the recent tax cuts were going to kill people by the thousands, if not millions, and that the Net Neutrality repeal would bring about the digital apocalypse. I guess we’ll see what 2018 brings. Maybe millions of Oregonians will die trying to pump their own gas, right? I mean, who knows?

Quick Update

Some of my readers may know that we were blessed with a new addition to our family a few days ago. Juliet was born, and is healthy. She missed being a Christmas baby by two days. More to come as time goes on and the wife and I catch up on a lot of missed sleep over the last few days.

4jgf

Merry Christmas

o5oYF

Merry Christmas from my house to yours. It’s a little warm here in Florida, a nice, toasty 65 degrees. I sometimes wonder if this is what my Australian friends feel, having Christmas in the middle of summer. It certainly makes all the usual Christmas songs a little amusing.

Anyway, I have to get back to the family and my son is impatient to open his gifts. Y’all have a great holiday, and never forget what it is we are celebrating. Christ has come!

 

Wednesday Randoms II

Today there is a new weekly column up on Dangerous: THALES: Turning Empathy Into a Weapon, How Social Justice Fights Dirty. This is a summary of a concept that’s been central to my posts here at The Declination.

Weaponized Empathy is a chief weapon of the Left, and we need to deprive them of it. To do so will impose a cost. Namely, many Leftists will hate you, and say the worst about you. But its a cost that must be lived with if the truth is to prevail. Indeed, the longer the cost is deferred, the worse it is likely to be.

On Monday, Francis penned an interesting post which touches upon the idea delayed gratification, something most Americans do not practice. By pushing instant gratification, and kicking the cost can down the road, our civilization has incurred an enormous amount of debt, and not merely financial debt (though that too).

The perverse incentives of our political figures has made this possible. But the citizenry itself cannot avoid responsibility either. After all, Americans have been voting en masse for short-sighted, destructive policies as long as I’ve been alive. The money quote:

We the People have earned a certain suffering-debt for our previous sociopolitical sins – never mind that we were set upon our sinful courses by an earlier We the People, who passed their accumulated suffering-debt down to us – then our choice is simple:

 

We could accept the penalty, endure it, and come out healed;
We could reject the penalty, which would compound the ultimate suffering.

 

Since World War II at least, the public has preferred politicians who will “kick the can down the road.” In consequence, government has gone ever further astray and our accumulated debt of ultimate suffering has compounded year by year. At some point, though the moment is difficult to predict, the debt will be paid. If it’s grown large enough, it will destroy our society completely.

 

But a payable sociopolitical suffering-debt is like a prison term: it’s finite. It will end. It can and should be endured, especially if the alternative is to raise it to an unpayable level. Our unwillingness to accept and endure the penalties that have already accrued is propelling such debts toward the threshold of sociopolitical bankruptcy.

Note, when Francis speaks of sociopolitical bankruptcy, is essentially discussing the fall of the United States as a functional, intact nation. And the longer we kick the can down the road, the more likely that outcome becomes. Indeed, I’m not even sure we can still avoid it.

On a positive note, Trump managed to push tax cuts through. They are not anywhere near as extensive as I would have liked, and I am sorely disappointed with the behavior of the GOP (more with the Senate than the House), but this is something.

Tax cuts used to be a sort of bread-and-butter of GOP politics, alongside strong foreign policy. The various factions within the party would jockey and argue over everything else, but low taxes and strong military were generally always agreed upon. That this much infighting was required to get the GOP to push through a tax cut – any tax cut at all – is disturbing. It demonstrates the slow evolution of the GOP Establishment away from the base, and toward a more Fabian Socialist agenda, agreeing with the Democrats in principle if not in time frame.

Still, this was why many folks chose Trump over Hillary. We knew we weren’t getting what we wanted, but a tax cut is better than a tax hike. Still, some Dems are going off the deep end telling us the tax cuts will literally kill people. They’ve clearly left sanity behind.

%d bloggers like this: