RadFems and SJWs are fond of repeating, almost as mantra, the notion of cishet white male privilege. It is almost as if being born white and male is winning the lottery to them. If I raise my hand on the side of the street, surely the cabbie will chose me over some woman. If I land the job interview, surely my light skin and male genitals will mean I will get the job over, say, an Asian woman.
It’s complete and total horseshit.
I’ve never really bought into this privilege business to begin with. Life is inherently unfair. I remember getting a call from my wife, she told me that a tornado dropped a couch on her car. She sent me the pics after, and sure enough, there was a couch that had busted up the rear window and wrecked the trunk. Apparently it bounced off the car next to hers, which was totaled, and decided to come to a rest on hers before ending its journey. Was that fair? Absolutely not. Did it happen anyway? Sure did. My father’s truck was struck by lightning, in motion, driving down I-4 during a really bad storm. Came in through the antenna, fried everything electrical in the truck. Also not fair. Also happened.
SJWs make very specific claims about fairness and equality, however. First, they tell us that racism, sexism, etc… exist. Then the tell us that it’s extremely harmful (in some cases, they claim it is the equal of physical violence). Finally, they tell us that they can fix this bigotry through bigotry of their own. Intolerance of intolerance, they claim. Fight fire with fire. Fight racism against blacks, for instance, with racism against whites. Fight sexism against females with sexism against males, and so on. And then sometimes you get women like Ashleigh Shackelford who just say “fuck you, pay me” and dispense with the window dressings.
For SJWs this is an endless buffet of grievances they can milk for Weaponized Empathy. And yet, I’ve long been aware of the fact that the supposedly-privileged really aren’t. If they ever were, that benefit ended long ago. If anyone on this Earth has privilege, it is attractive women in the West.
If you’re a hot chick in the West, everything you could ever want is yours. Always, there will be some man out there who will take you on free vacations, and buy you things. Or you can strip, or sell your body. Or, as is more common these days, you can post some vaguely Left-wing claptrap about saving the whales or something, and create an Instagram account of endless vacations funded through Patreon, because your scantily-clad bikini pictures in Tenerife attract hordes of thirsty incel SJW “men”. When a hot girl says something stupid, people pay attention to her anyway.
This has the effect of separating the hot chick from reality even more. She might think her stupid poems are beautiful art, because thirsty men will say anything to an attractive woman. She might even think her Lefty politics are edgy and engaging. No, dear, they aren’t spamming your Instagram comments because you attended the BLM rally last week. They are doing it because you’re wearing a transparent g-string in broad daylight, and these guys haven’t been laid since Bush II was president.
Anita Sarkeesian – who isn’t even very attractive, I might add – went all the way to the UN with some vague bullshit about video games and sexism, expecting the international organization of universal idiocy to do something about it. Nobody would tolerate that much nonsense coming out of the mouth of a man. But if a not-ugly woman says it, people will nod, talk, and take it all seriously. Or at least they will pretend to, anyway.
Celebrities operate likewise. Nobody gives a rat’s ass what political claptrap comes out of Ariana Grande’s mouth, per se, but because she’s hot, it’s news. Still, Bill Clinton will stare at her ass during a funeral like he’s a starving Somali, and her posterior was a bacon-wrapped filet mignon. Somehow Beyonce is treated like the queen of the universe by hordes of white women and thirsty SJW males. She’s a singer, not an incarnation of the Messiah. Seriously, people, enough is enough.
I remember reading some months back about who it was more morally permissible to run over at an intersection. Hot girls? No, no, we can’t have that. Save the children too. But men? Eh… men are speed bumps. They scored much lower. I discussed this with a friend of mine at the bar, and he coined the term Hot Girl Privilege. Everything SJWs say about white men is basically bullshit. But it’s true for most attractive women. It’s even true for that ones that aren’t very attractive – thirst and desperation is an ugly thing.
At one club I spin at, I was told that I would be followed up by another DJ later in the night, which was unusual. Usually I was the headline act there, but whatever. So this woman shows up with a laptop. Full stop. No turntables, no mixer, no controller, no cables, nothing. Just the laptop. I ask her how she intends to plug in to the mixer in the DJ booth. She asked me if I had cables she could borrow for this. To put this in perspective for my non-DJ readers, she showed up to a gig without the equipment to do the job and just assumed everyone there would bend over backwards to accommodate her. Her set was a disaster, she couldn’t even beatmatch (it’d be like being a race car driver who can’t drive stick). But the promoter brought her in because she looked good in a glitter-bra and thong panties. DJ ability not required.
On Twitter, RadFems will talk about how they suffered some kind of microaggression because someone didn’t kiss their ass as if it was morally equivalent to the Holocaust. Another feminist made the news for walking down the street in a sketchy neighborhood, swaying her hips in tight pants, strutting her stuff, trolling for wolf-whistles – which were then submitted as evidence of evil oppressive activity. This meme captures the spirit well enough:
One feminist was quoted as saying she wanted male-female equality in high-status jobs like corporate executives and finance. When asked if she thought male-female equality should also extend to dirty, dangerous jobs like working in a sewer, she laughed and said obviously not. Women didn’t want those jobs, obviously. A newspaper printed an infographic lamenting that 1 in 4 homeless people were women. Did the author desire more men to be homeless? Somehow we are supposed to focus on 25% of the homeless, and fuck the other 75%.
In everything, the perspective of women – especially attractive women – is taken more seriously. Men don’t matter, and if anybody notices them, it’s only because they are evil oppressors. In some ways, this is a consequence of the fact that, in very biological ways, men are disposable. One man and a thousand women could repopulate mankind. The reverse means almost certain extinction. Yet RadFems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want every benefit of being women, without conceding anything to men in turn. They still want men to earn more money and be stronger – because that’s what they are attracted to – and yet think it’s unfair that they have less money (there was even a campaign to pay women more money for their work) and tend to be physically weaker. Feminism is full of implicit contradictions, and even a few explicit ones.
Back in 2014, a man minding his own business on the subway was accosted by a woman who made fun of him again and again, yelling at him for his chosen clothes. Had any man done this to a woman, the outrage would have been heard around the world. But to top it off, the woman punched him in the face. He slapped her, open handed, in turn. He was arrested. When the video came out on Youtube, proving his innocence, the charges were dropped. All the woman got for her antics and her assault was some “anger management” classes. Girl privilege saved her from being punched first for her stupidity, saved her again when he slapped her instead of punching her to do real damage, and then saved her one final time from doing any real time for her stupidity.
And what do you bet they go easy on the sixth grade teacher who had sex with a 13 year old. Just as women are more likely to get custody of the kids in a divorce, so are they more likely to walk away with a slap on the wrist, or at least less punishment than if a man does the same.
When a woman accomplishes something, it is because she is so good she broke through the evil patriarchal glass ceiling. When she fails, it is because of sexism. No matter what, she cannot lose.
Now, I don’t want my readers to think I’m bitter about all this. Fact is, some of this is biological. Men and women are different, and this produces different outcomes. I no more desire to “level the playing field” or make everything all fair (which is impossible anyway) than you do. Rather, I wish to highlight how absolutely bonkers SJWs are to claim that women are oppressed. Women in the West have more power than any comparable group of people in the history of our entire species.
No, if there is any problem with the West, it is that it puts women on a pedestal, from which even the nastiest, anti-Semitic crap-peddlers like Linda Sarsour find it difficult to fall from. Imagine if a man went to the UN and told them he was oppressed because some trolls were making mean jokes in Call of Duty like Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn did. The laughter would be audible from low Earth orbit. When a woman “free bleeds” all over herself to “fight the patriarchy”, she makes the magazine cover. Imagine if a man pissed his pants and claimed he was fighting the oppressive matriarchy… yeah, it’s that ridiculous.
Sarah Hoyt once mentioned that we live in a kind of stealth matriarchy, where women have all the power in the West, but still get to rail against an imaginary patriarchy as if they were living in some third world toilet where women are property. They get to feel like they are fighting against The Man, but they are, in fact, The Man. Just the mere fact that claiming oppression wins them notoriety and fame is tacit evidence everything they are saying is bullshit. At least the Ashleigh Shackelfords of the world saying “fuck you, pay me” are being a little bit honest. They’re just in it for free Patreon and PayPal money from idiot, guilt-tripped soyboys. At least they realize it’s all a con game and admit it openly.
Instagram girls claim the patriarchy has supposedly hindered them their whole lives, while spending that fat Patreon money – fleeced from thirsty men – on exotic vacations. They appear to be completely unaware of the inherent contradictions of everything they say. The oppressors pad their accounts. The oppressed tan on some exotic beach and post pictures of martinis and skimpy, designer bikinis. The oppressed get to endlessly shit on the oppressors. Indeed, they gain fame, money, and attention from shitting on their supposed oppressors. And if the oppressor says anything about this arrangement, the Internet mobs will hunt him down and get him fired from his job.
At some level, they know this. That’s why these “The Future is Female” t-shirts sell like hotcakes. They don’t want equality – and even if they did, equality is not possible. What they want is power. What they want is money. Ashleigh Shackelford shilling for reparations money is the real face of feminism. Her slogan “fuck you, pay me” might as well be the motto of Feminism. They want to sit on a beach in Tenerife, while the men slave in the sewers. They want the credit, and don’t want to work for any of it. Zoe Quinn claimed the title of game developer after “developing” what amounted to a fancy Word document, and people took her seriously because she possessed a vagina. Like how showing up to DJ without even the means to connect to the club’s sound system is okay if you have a fabulous rack.
Whatever. The world is what it is and there’s not much we can do about it. But what we can do is call out the utter lunacy of Western women claiming oppression. There has never been a less oppressed group in the history of Earth. And if you believe we’re alone in the universe, there has never been any less oppressed group of lifeforms in the history of the entire universe. Everything about feminism can be exposed for the lie that it is through one simple truth: Hot Girl Privilege.
So I’m a day late and a few dollars short on my holiday wishes, for which I can only plead the excuse of driving all over my home state to various family gatherings over the last couple of days. The driving is a chore, of course, but the company is worth the trouble, and I must consider myself fortunate to have the family that I do. Nonetheless, I hope my readers have had an excellent Christmas and will enjoy a fruitful and prosperous new year. Typically, I am not the best at holiday well-wishes – to the point that I deliberately invoke The Grinch on a regular basis during the holiday season. Not, I should note, because I dislike Christmas, but because I believe a lot of folks have lost their way.
I won’t lecture you too deeply about the meaning of Christmas and the deeper mysteries of Christian faith – that is for other, and better souls. What I will say is that every year I am disappointed by the Black Friday rushes, the obsession with Apple products, the advertisements for new cars (always with a bow on them – as if that $30,000 automobile doesn’t come with a hefty payment that lasts far after Christmas is past). In Jim Carrey’s version of The Grinch, the titular character laments on how all the cheesy unwanted gifts wind up on his mountain, and you get the impression that the character is the way he is because he loathes the envy and greed behind the season.
Somebody once said that money is the root of all evil. But I’ve never believed that. Envy is the root. It is simply that, in a society that runs on money instead of barter, money is the means by which envy expresses itself. Like how a pen and paper are not evil in themselves, but an evil man may use them to write evil things. The envious man works likewise with regards to money. There is so much envy in the holidays each year, it is profoundly disappointing to me.
So yes, it’s so common it’s surely a cliche. But try and remember what is important. Christ was born, and for this we celebrate. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb often says, let us not mix the profane and the Holy. That is, in this blogger’s opinion, the real mistake we often make. The consumer goods, the toys, new cars, iPads, and cheesy gifts soon to find their way to the dump… on their own, these are the profane. But if there is love for family and friends behind the gifts, if envy and jealousy aren’t a part of it, if there is celebration of our faith underneath it, then it is something different.
I know my readers understand. And I am grateful for all of you.
Merry Christmas, have a happy New Year.
God be merciful unto us, and bless us; and cause his face to shine upon us.
At times, I talk with my wife about Communism, the Cold War, and the like. She is generally uninterested in politics save for the fact that, as a daughter of Cuban exiles, she has an instinctive loathing for Communism. When I talk with her about these things, though, they are always personal. Her family suffered under the Castro regime, and that is enough to prove to her that the Communists are on the side of evil. No further analysis is really required for her. Another acquaintance of mine is a woman of Vietnamese descent. Her opinions of Communism are likewise informed by the experiences of family during the fall of South Vietnam and the long course of the war which preceded it.
America defeated the Soviet Union through near-Herculean economic and technological feats, while the Soviets destroyed themselves utterly trying to push their flagging, hobbled economy to keep up with us, with the boat anchor of Socialism holding it back all the while. Yet already, most of the world was Socialist or at least leaned that way to some degree. Socialism continues to gain ground. The rats of world Socialism bailed from the sinking Soviet Titanic, but did not die. My wife cannot go to Cuba, my friend cannot go to Vietnam. And though the Berlin Wall fell, it’s questionable if the long term future of Germany is improved with millions of migrants instead of Stasi secret policemen.
Movement toward Socialism is one-way and inexorable everywhere. Once a Socialist policy is implemented, getting rid of it is a Herculean feat. I remember when Bush II floated the trial balloon of allowing workers to contribute to private investment accounts in lieu of Social Security. That lasted all of about 5 minutes. The outcry could probably be heard from orbit. Obamacare is still around, despite Trump’s best efforts (at least the tax mandate is gone, though). Look at socialist programs around the West. Once passed, they never die. Its partisans will fight to the death. Its opponents presumably have better things to do.
Earlier today, I was reading a little about the fall of Saigon and the final days of South Vietnam, and it is fascinating to see how fast the South fell apart. Kill nearly a million Socialists and somehow more sprout up from the ground. One gets the feeling that America was simply exhausted at a moral level as much as anything else. Imagine fighting Communists in the bush for years on end, only to watch Jane Fonda do her little puff piece act, and watch popular support evaporate like a fart in a hurricane.
Socialists are good at hacking the human emotional landscape, so to speak. As I stated in an earlier post, the nature of this moral argument stems from a misinterpretation of the Golden Rule, or alternatively, from the optimum play strategy in Game Theory. In the first round, you ought to Keep Faith, in the hopes that your opponent will do likewise, and you may both benefit. If this fails, you should Betray in the next round, to teach the other a lesson, and to avoid being a sucker. Treat the other person how you would like to be treated and all that. However, this has a deeper implication. If the other person hits betray, then it is assumed he likewise treated you as he wished to be treated. So now we play the game by his rules: betray, betray, betray.
Socialists reset the game with each transaction, however. The moral trick of the political Left is to consider every action in a moral vacuum. Keep Faith this time, the Leftist says. And when the betrayal happens, ignore it and reset the game. Keep Faith again, and again, and again… until they march into your headquarters and finally tell it to you straight: “There is no question of your transferring power. Your power has crumbled. You cannot give up what you do not have.”
By doing this, Socialists will win any moral argument. If, for instance, they provide a picture of a poor Syrian child, and say “how could you possibly turn away this poor innocent child,” hordes of people will lose their resolve and agree to allowing millions of migrants to go wherever they please without resistance. The Syrian child doesn’t exist in a moral vacuum. You’ve been betrayed, and the Left reset the game again. Same with illegal immigration in the United States. In debates with Leftists, I have seen them refer to the conditions illegals in our custody live in as worse than Nazi concentration camps. Who believes this? And yet they will defend the point with a thousand rationalizations, and then demand we Keep Faith again because clearly we’re horrible, and the poor innocent kids need us to keep the faith.
If we do, another few million will cross the border. They hit Betray, just as they did to Reagan after amnesty. Again and again.
Socialists are relentless in their political fighting. They are like political Terminators. They do not stop until the whole world is Socialist. For them no lie is too great, nor is any murder too evil, if truth and life stand in the way of Socialism. And once they dig their claws into a place, getting rid of them is a Herculean effort. The Cold War and the defeat of the USSR was, perhaps, the greatest achievement America ever accomplished, and even that was not enough. Socialism continues its long march through the institutions.
My Cuban in-laws lament that, when America falls – as they think it probably will soon – that will be it. America was the last place for them to go and be free. If America falls into Socialism, the rest of the world is sure to follow. I’ve long suspected that fear of America is all that kept many places from openly embracing it, in full rather than in part. Meanwhile, within our borders, the disease festers and grows. I remember Bill Kristol extolling how he was embracing his Socialist side in the wake of Donald Trump’s election. Even the nominal Right has been infected by it.
In a conversation with Sarah Hoyt some years ago, I remember her telling me that she was infected, to some degree, by Marxist thinking. That we all were, myself included. We were raised in it, like a fish in water. It’s in academia, media, culture, and even lower education. The simple moral reset is a sort of brain hack – where otherwise intelligent individuals are somehow stymied from critical thinking by the right picture, the sob story media puff piece, the Palestinian actors (some who forget to stop moving in their body bags when the cameras pan over them).
The gullibility of regular folks, unable to parse that an unpleasant act in the immediate moment may indeed be the correct answer to a moral quandary in the same way medical triage prioritizes some patients over others, enables the Socialists to continue forward, their opposition caught in a Kafka trap. The Socialists are pushing through the ARVN again and again, melting resistance like a hot knife through ideological butter. Donald Trump’s election was indeed a great reversal for them, but that bought us 4 years? Maybe 8?
And 2 of them are already up.
Folks, I don’t know that America has another Hail Mary pass in her like the one we pulled in 2016. I want to believe it does, but damnit… people need to get over this moral trap bullshit. It’s followed us from French Indochina to the steps of the White House. It has pushed from Havana to Miami. Where it was booted out of Moscow, it has taken root throughout the Eurozone. And one wonders if Putin himself desires to resurrect the Soviet corpse. Even in Chile, the land of Pinochetian helicopters, Pinochet has now become reviled, his sins made into the worst thing ever. The sins of Socialists, far greater though they are, are glossed over as mere nothings. One wonders if, had Pinochet never taken power, Chile would look like Venezuela today.
Everywhere I look the Socialist enemy advances, and his chief weapon was the same a hundred years ago as it is today. It is always the moral argument – and a foolish one that people really shouldn’t fall for, and yet do, time and time again. Kill a million Communists, come home, and find the Communist on your television set, lamenting how evil you were for resisting him.
Hanoi Jane should have gone into a wood chipper upon her return. Instead South Vietnam went down the shitter. Batista was terrible, they told us, and so we could not oppose Castro because the optics were bad. That’s another way of saying the State Department was then (as now) infested with sympathetic Socialists playing the moral reset game. Keep the faith with Castro, they said. He’ll see the light – whatever that is.
In the book I Was Castro’s Prisoner, John Martino, an American caught up in the days of the revolution, was betrayed by his very own embassy staff, and left to rot in a Cuban prison. All because the timing was wrong, they said. To be clear: American officials told him to report back to the Cuban prison for political reasons after a sympathetic Cuban doctor helped him escape to the American embassy. John Martino – naive at the time – agreed under the condition they would negotiate his release the following day. That, naturally, never happened.
Do not Keep Faith. They. Will. Betray. Every fucking time. I don’t know how much more clear I can make it: DO NOT KEEP FAITH. John Martino should have followed the advice of the Cuban doctor and insisted he was staying in the embassy, and if they wanted him removed, they would have to do so by force. The optics of that would have looked bad even in the Socialist-infested State Department.
The Long March of Socialism continues. It has suffered reverses at various times – some of them severe – at our hands, but this has made them hate us more. And by our hands, at this point I mean anyone who doesn’t want to see the world fall into darkness and tyranny; anyone opposed to this Communist crap. I am not choosy about my allies, so long as the thought of Hanoi Jane disappearing out of a chopper somewhere over the Atlantic gives them shivers of joy.
This is why, despite the fact that I was never much of a fan of Trump at any kind of personal level, I was did not fall into NeverTrump stupidity. Donald Trump may have a myriad of flaws, but he fights, and he has made his stance against Socialism clear. NeverTrumpers stupidly kept the faith with the Left again. Stop doing this, for the love of all that is Holy it DOES NOT WORK. We no longer have the luxury of picking perfect, upstanding, flawless men to fight this battle. We’re against the wall. If we don’t fight now, at the very end, we’ll die against that wall. Anybody who wants to fight gets a weapon and gets his chance to dive into the fray. If Trump isn’t nice, well then I don’t care. He gets his pitchfork to stick the Socialist shitstains if he wants it.
I don’t want to be nice to them. My Cuban in-laws lost their country. My Vietnamese friend lost hers. I have a friend in Venezuela, trying to flee that place… and for him, the result is likely to be the same. That’s us if we don’t stop this madness, folks. Kurt Schlichter is fond of telling us that the other side hates us. They do. They want us dead, and they lack the patience of their Fabian Socialist forebears. You think, after they gain power, that we’ll be around much longer? Look all around, everywhere, and you see that this is it. We live in the time when fighting Socialism or bending the knee to Socialism are the only two viable options.
My knees are not so good anymore. I don’t like bending them. It’s uncomfortable. In any event, the American knee does not bend easily, or naturally, in the service of tyrants. I’d rather fight. That’s my decision. So I don’t Keep Faith with Socialists anymore. Never again. This shit has to stop. We’re the last line of defense.
What’s your decision? Unlike my wife’s family, there will be nowhere for us if America falls. There will be no helicopters over Saigon to evacuate us to friendly territory. So either bend the knee or take up the pitchforks. Make your decision. If you choose the latter, stop listening to their moral preening. It’s all a bunch of bullshit designed to con you into hitting Keep Faith one more time.
That’s all it ever was. That’s all it ever will be.
Imagine for a moment a common scenario in any major urban area. You’re caught in the morning traffic, stuck a few cycles behind a stoplight. Nobody has moved in a while. A beggar walks between the cars with a faded cardboard sign, hand out for whatever pocket change or crumpled bills you might have stashed in your center console. Maybe you have some this time, or perhaps not. Either way, you don’t feel like giving anything to the beggar. He walks by your car, and you avert your gaze. You feel wrong for giving nothing. A stab of guilt hits you, or perhaps worry that other drivers will see how stingy you are, even though it is likely you will never encounter the other drivers again.
And while there is a fair chance you might encounter the beggar again, for they each have their various territories and haunts, it is doubtful he will even recognize you from the thousands of other drivers wasting their lives away at the intersection.
Where does the guilt come from? Would it not be better to part with a couple of wadded up dollar bills to be rid of it? After all, what are you going to use them for, maybe buying a coke out of the vending machine at work?
I am fond of referencing a specific incident on Twitter that ties into this problem. In it, a woman laments that Elon Musk should have fixed Flint’s water supply, rather than launching a car into space as part of a publicity stunt. It ties in neatly with those protesters, back during the days of the Apollo program, who demanded that the funds given to NASA to do the thing should have been used to improve the lives of poor black people instead.
I wonder if the NASA engineers and scientists ever experienced a similar pang of guilt, if they drove past the protesters and refused to make eye contact with them out of misplaced guilt. Certainly, I’d hope they didn’t feel such guilt, but human nature being what it is, it would not surprise me if they did, at some level.
We live in a strange time, perhaps. Or maybe it isn’t strange, and things were the same thousands of years ago. Who can say? Today, Americans – and probably Westerners in general – go deep into debt keeping up with the Joneses. Having done this, they drive past people who, in many cases, actually have more net worth than they do (for many possess negative net worth – zero is a financial improvement), walking down the street, hat in hand, grabbing the wadded bills and worn pocket change.
Sometimes I’ll listen to Dave Ramsey on Youtube. He’ll get callers who are deeply in debt, trying to claw their way out of financial stupidity. Yet to causal eyes, such people would appear to be wealthy – certainly more so than a street beggar. Do those who are deeply in debt still feel a stab of guilt that they haven’t given their last few quarters and pennies away? Perhaps folks like that shouldn’t buy a $70k BMW on a wage-earner’s salary. That would be sensible, I think. Yet… if they can afford the car, could they not afford to give away wealth instead?
Should they mortgage the house to pay beggars instead? Should they take a $70k note to donate to charity, or pay high taxes to the government for some social welfare program?
If this sounds confusing, that is because none of it makes any sense at all.
In the bizarre moral calculus of the modern West, people view each interaction in a moral vacuum. You are driving a nice car, therefore you should give money to the beggar. This is near to universal in the thoughts of most Americans, this is why the stab of guilt reaches them, despite their own respective situations. You could be one step from bankruptcy, but it doesn’t matter. At that specific moment, your lifestyle is greater, so you should give up something.
When an illegal immigrant hops over the border and the Border Patrol catches him, only that specific moment matters at all. The Border Patrol agent’s lifestyle is greater – indeed, all of America’s lifestyle as a whole is greater – thus the illegal should be permitted entry. It is morally wrong, to many, to think otherwise. Yet at some level, people are aware of the contradiction. This is why many do not give their last dimes to the street beggar, and do not want the illegal to enter.
Ask a Leftist if he is an open borders advocate, and most will say no. Ask them to judge every single case of illegal entry, and each individual case would be allowed on charitable grounds, creating a de facto open borders situation some Leftists may not even be consciously aware of (others certainly are, and desire this). Ask a Leftist if he thinks every person should have an absolutely equal standard of living, and almost every single one would say no. Yet each individual incident will be judged on the basis of who has more wealth, or who appears to have more wealth, and thus the flow of wealth must invariably go in one direction only, until no such inequality remains. It is de facto support of identical standards of living for all.
I know a man who is deeply in debt, hovering on the edge of bankruptcy, and his wife constantly argues to take in poor, unfortunate people off the street in order to help them. Such people will undoubtedly be held up as heroes to most. And yet, is this right? If your husband is working multiple jobs just to keep the creditors away a little longer, should you give away his money to strangers you don’t have any connection with?
I am told of another man, a father-in-law to another friend, who has been robbed, wronged, and stolen from by the folks he purports to help, over and over again. He declines to do anything about the thefts and the wrongs, and takes in more such people, who consistently use him for freebies. Such people aren’t getting their lives together, they are merely mooching off a gullible man, easily conned out of his money and possessions.
No doubt, if confronted, the thieves would couch the thefts in terms of their needs, and their mark’s relative high standard of living. He has more, you see, so it is just to take from him.
As I mentioned in my previous post, we have a modern interpretation of every incident in life according to a very strict and stupid set of moral requirements. They are as follows:
- Each incident must be considered in a complete vacuum. You cannot take into account the wider implications, or the future, or past actions, or even larger contexts. Only that individual’s circumstances, in this exact moment, matter at all.
- The one whose standard of living appears greater is automatically the quasi-oppressor. Moral obligations flow from the individual who appears to be more wealthy to the individual who appears less wealthy. Moral obligations in the other direction do not exist.
- Various exceptions may be permitted according to racial/religious minority status. In such cases, moral obligations flow from the caste perceived to be more privileged to the caste perceived to possess less privilege. Moral obligations in the other direction do not exist.
- Relative privilege is assigned by a sort of popularity contest.
Only the appearance matters. If you drive a BMW, and the other person does not, he has no moral obligations to you, but you have every obligation to him. If he steals your car, it’s probably because you were privileged. You probably deserved it. If the beggar spits on your car because you did not part with your pocket change, that is your fault. If you take in a poor person, and he steals your stuff, that is because you were privileged. Shut your mouth, loser, and take in someone else. If the illegal crosses the border, he should be admitted even if he’s a crackhead and wanted for robbery in his home country, merely because in that particular moment, his circumstances appear worse than yours.
The true-believer Leftist will brain-lock in any of these incidents (the Deceivers won’t – but that’s a matter for a different post). He will be unable to rationalize himself out of the moral problem. And so, if he doesn’t give up that last dollar to the street beggar, he will feel guilty for it. He will be unable to escape the Kafkan moral trap without either doing what is desired (giving up his money) or feeling guilty. The guilt, of course, is equally useful to power-seekers, for it can be used to craft social policy.
Many Rightists will also be caught in the trap, because quite frankly, most of us have grown up in a world that follows the moral demands I’ve outlined. The four points can be summarized further:
The Lie: GOOD IS ALWAYS NICE
It’s a lie. Furthermore, it’s a lie that even Leftists are aware of at some level. They are fond of referring to Rightists as Nazis, and then becoming violent and very not-nice toward us. Are they thus evil because they are not being nice to us? They escape the trap by saying that we are so bad (they have said we are Nazis, after all), we deserve it. We have it coming.
That is tacit admission that the good must be nice policy is bullshit. Yet the rule is still applied to all others. Leftists will often consume themselves in an orgy of self-destructive behavior to arrive at who is at the bottom of the stack (and thus truly at the top of the stack). Moral obligations are one way and flow from privileged to not-privileged, in every individual situation.
Now, real, actual charity can be a good thing, provided a few conditions are met:
- You know that your actions are likely to help. Handing a crackhead more money will not improve his situation. It may make it worse. Welfare programs suffer the trap of not necessarily helping the supposed beneficiaries. This is why charity usually works best if you know the other person, and are in a position to judge whether or not your charitable actions are actually helping.
- The receiver of the charity acknowledges his own responsibility. For instance, if you decide that some money will help a poor person, and you give the money to him, he now has an obligation to both himself and you. He must use the funds responsibly, to fix his situation, because that was why he was given the money. He should not, for instance, go buy beer with it.
- The charity is personal, and not pressured. You want to do it. You weren’t forced to do it by government, or peer pressure. Otherwise it’s just a form of theft. If you feel guilty about the situation, you should avoid the situation, because that pressure is coming from somewhere else.
- The charity should cease if the beneficiary doesn’t acknowledge his own responsibilities. If he buys beer with your money, he should receive nothing else from you. If he steals your stuff, he should be reported to the police.
- You don’t screw over other people in order to do it. Ruining your family’s finances to help a stranger is not a net good. This includes yourself. Ruining your business, your own life, and all that… these are not net gains either.
Good doesn’t have to be nice. The concepts are not linked. Nor do moral obligations flow in only one direction. In all interactions in society, moral obligations are two-way, and if the other participant flouts them, you are under no obligation to continue to use them yourself with regards to him. In simple terms, if he hits you, you hit him back. One-way moral obligations constitute a form of slavery.
In this way, modern Leftists are slavers. Being nice exclusively, and without reciprocation, is an invitation for evil. It is a bright neon sign casting light far into the distance that says “please come and use me.” Leftism enshrines its notion of all interactions as effectively one-way moral transactions. It cannot even understand the notion of a mutually beneficial exchange. Capitalism must be exploitation, says the Leftist, because he can’t understand two-way interactions.
The Eurythmics track Sweet Dreams contains a line to this effect:
Everybody’s looking for something.
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused.
Some of the Leftists are abusers, looking to abuse you, to steal from you, to mooch off you, to use you. Others want to be abused, to be stolen from, to be used, in order to trumpet their supposed superiority over the rest of us. These are all one-way interactions. The correct answer is: none of the above. All interactions are either two-way, or you should get the fuck out of that situation.
Truth: GOOD IS NOT ALWAYS NICE
Enshrine that and live it.
Also, if you see a street beggar, unless you know the guy and his situation (in which case, do as seems best), just say no. And don’t avert your eyes when you do it.
Some time ago, Tom Kratman explained to me that pacifism is, at its core, a form of moral cowardice. The reasons for this are many and varied, but we can summarize it by considering that, were the pacifist to see a gang banger beating the crap out of an innocent old lady, the pacifist would consider intervening to be an injustice. After all, the pacifist would say, being violent in turn only brings us down to the gang banger’s level. In the mind of a pacifist, both the gang banger and the defender of old ladies are equally evil, for both resort to violence.
Leftism is full of moral paradoxes like this. I have, of late, taken to calling the phenomenon a form of brain lock. Leftism resembles, in part, a form of philosophy sometimes called moralistic therapeutic deism. It fits in neatly with this “I’m spiritual, not religious” nonsense espoused by a number of indecisive morons. I’ve seen this phenomenon called “post-Christian”, or a number of other similar terms. It is assuredly post-modern, for it has no obvious antecedents in our recent history. Whatever we call it, it is the dominant belief system in the Western world, even with many who consider themselves to be Christians.
In essence, it is a dumbing down of Christian morality combined with a form of pseudo-scientific Marxist absolutism. The pacifist will say that all violence is bad, but in his absolute devotion to this overly-simplistic principle, actually prevents himself from doing anything to stop the very violence he theoretically decries.
Good, the MTD adherent will say, is being nice. It is the Golden Rule, or something very much like it. So the adherent will countenance importing many not-nice individuals, in the name of being nice. Consider how Angela Merkel and her enablers like to guilt Germans about the atrocities of their anti-Semitic Nazi past, and use this guilt to import hordes of anti-Semites.
This is the kind of contradiction that infects adherents of this overly-simplistic worldview. Equality is their god, because equality is nice. If you have more, you should give it up until you don’t. Elon Musk shouldn’t shoot cars into space until Flint’s water supply is fixed. It is an inversion of Game Theory. The more your opponent punches up betray, the more you keep the faith. If Muslims blow your buildings up, write sympathetic pieces about the religion of peace, give them tons of money, and yell at folks who are skeptical of the religion.
In the pursuit of absolute justice, they propagate injustice. If a man cures cancer, should he be allowed to keep the millions that would surely flow to him? Or should he have to give it all away because of equality? Surely the unemployed crack addict should have the same standard of living, right?
This form of morality is both absolute and simple, and it does not work at its stated goals. Want more terrorism? Do this. Want more crime? Want more people to be on welfare? Do this. Want more violence, war, and hatred? This, this, and more this. Pacifism leads to more violence, not peace. Welfare leads to more layabouts, not more productive people. If you genuinely dislike violence, you must be prepared to do violence to those who violate the peace. If you value productivity, you must allow poverty to be uncomfortable.
The world does not conform to the MTD view. Being nice doesn’t make people be nice to you in turn. The Golden Rule contains an implicit condition: at some point, the rule should be reciprocated. You don’t apply the rule to a known genocidal maniac. In Game Theory terms, the Golden Rule means that, in the first round of the game, you select keep faith hoping that the other player will see the value in selecting likewise. If he fails to do so, and betrays instead, betray him in the second round since he cannot be trusted. Perhaps the betrayal will convince him that you are not a sucker, and he will learn to keep faith. Or maybe he’ll just keep hitting betray, and you will at least have avoided being a complete gullible moron.
Leftists can’t do this. They recoil from the necessary duty of being not-nice, of employing violence on the violent, of quid pro quo economics. They can’t see past this and encounter a form of brain lock in which they cannot comprehend how being not-nice in this moment could lead to a nicer society down the road. They cannot understand how violence can make the peace.
Or, if they do understand, they are merely too cowardly to carry out their duties as such. Perhaps for some, this is all post-event rationalization for why they did not intervene to save the old lady from the gang banger. “I am too good, too moral to fight,” says the pacifist, “someone else should do it for me.” Whether that someone else is a Rightist they loathe – but secretly need to keep from being turned into a bloody pulp – or a god they don’t really believe in (but hey, they are spiritual, not religious) doesn’t matter.
In fact, the distant not-really-extant god that they crawl to only in dire need is a great example of this. Fuck you, you don’t exist, says the adherent to God. He’ll drop a cross in a jar of piss, call Christians retarded and make fun of their stupid sky wizard. The next day when he loses his job and gets dumped by his gender-confused housemate he’ll expect the universe – or his god-like spirit – to intervene on his behalf and fix all his shit. And if that doesn’t work, he’ll crawl to the government, hat in hand, and expect the money cribbed from the rest of us to put humpty-dumpty back together again.
And if you don’t, you’re not nice, you big meanie. Now obey or I will apply social peer pressure to you!
The insidious side of this belief system is that it only works if the non-believers cave in to it, in sufficient numbers. That is the problem we have here. Go talk to a liberal on social media and try this experiment. Say something morally complex, like the first boat of
refugees invaders to Europe should have been sunk, and that doing so would have actually prevented the loss of life the ensuing mass migration incurred. Or, if that is too spicy for your taste, merely state that illegal immigrants should be deported back to their birth countries.
Immediate brain lock will occur. You are a big meanie. You are evil. You are immoral and inferior to the Leftist, who is, of course, nicer than you! You can extol the virtues of self-defense, and a fair number of them will dispute the morality of even that much. You should run away, you should not stand your ground, for how could you be so mean to the violent criminal?
There is no breaking through the brain lock. The notion that good does not mean nice is foreign to them. They are sheep thinking sheepdogs and wolves are the same, because both have sharp teeth.
Once a Leftist has brain locked, the only possible expression is fury. How dare you question orthodoxy, infidel! This is why moralistic therapeutic deism may be a good description for the phenomenon, because despite often atheistic pretensions and its Marxist genealogy, it acts like a religion. It is merely that the religion is not well developed and is extremely over-simplistic.
Christianity spent many centuries arguing about its tenets. The nature of Christ, the Trinity, things like just war theory and just what was meant by the commandments… these were all theological debates (some of which went much further than that) that occurred in Christianity’s long history. Christianity largely solved the moral dilemmas and contradictions throughout the ages. And it did so through rigorous debate and practical application. It wasn’t always pretty, either, as Leftists often harp on.
Point is, though, it was done. And in so doing, answers to moral problems were arrived at, and a history was forged with guidelines for how to handle certain moral issues. MTD has none of this long history or debate. Its principles are simple and absolute. They lack even the forgiveness mechanism Christianity provides for those (all of us at some point or another) who fail to live up to its tenets. For them, guilt is eternal. Guilt lasts even past death – this is how white Americans can be held responsible for slavery long after all slavers and all slaves are dead. The guilt is never excised. Forgiveness is never granted.
Lacking such mechanisms for exploring the answers to complex moral problems, and lacking even the ability to forgive those who fail, MTD is, in fact, the opposite of nice.
It is an evil belief system in the same way pacifism is a cowardly belief system. And the reason for this is that the system allows and even encourages evil to flourish in the same way pacifism encourages violence. The fact that its adherents are unable or unwilling to see this is tragic. It doesn’t change the outcome one whit.
It is also prone to ever-greater heights of extremism. Vegans are often telling us that eating animals is violence against animals, and in turn, since niceness is the only virtue, we are evil for being omnivores. PETA once went so far as to cheer when a shark bit the leg of a little boy (IIRC, he lost the leg), because the boy and his father had been fishing, so the boy clearly deserved it for practicing violence against the fish.
They saw cheering as virtuous in the same manner as a Leftist celebrating that his country’s culture and history will be flushed down the toilet by waves of migration – much of it illegal and little of it assimilated – that dwarfs most migrations in human history. There is no higher cause, no greater positive sacrifice in the mind of the Leftist than cultural self-destruction.
And yet, having determined that all that is Western, or white, or male, or Christian – whatever – is evil and must be destroyed, they do not make the final rational leap: they are (usually) white themselves. Brought up in the West. At least vaguely post-Christian. Some are even kinda-sorta male. Shouldn’t they kill themselves, too? You know, set an example and all that.
No, of course not, says the coward. That’s for someone else to do. They are the anointed elites, you see.
They ain’t got time to save the old grannies. They are better than all that. It is a much better use of their time to rant about how an old Christmas song is sexist, or something.