Saint Augustine tells us (along with Gandhi, many years later) to love the sinner, and hate the sin. Conceptually, it’s easy enough to grasp. Practically, it’s not always an easy task. Drive down the freeway during peak traffic hours and tell me how many folks drive you crazy with poor driving antics. Certainly road rage wouldn’t be so prevalent if most folks managed to live by this rule. However, making the attempt to live this way is worthy even if we cannot always live up to it.
Social Justice orthodoxy demands that we hate the sinner for the sin. Paula Deen famously used the word “nigger” after being held up at gun point, and admitted that she may have said it in other contexts at some point or another in her life. This stain is considered permanent in some sense. Once you use the word, you are forever guilty, as if the offense were like committing a felony. Your record cannot ever be expunged. Forgiveness is impossible. You will be hated forever. You are an unperson, erased like a man in a Stalin-era photograph.
Fascinatingly, the author of the piece does not appear to have a problem with Joe Rogan himself, per se. Indeed, his opinion of Joe is high enough that most of the piece is about the author’s attempt to live likewise, and Joe’s ability to relate to the common American man. Rather, he takes issue with the fact that Joe Rogan would dare to talk with sinners, with the unpersoned. The money quote:
Joe likes Jack. He likes Milo Yiannopoulos. He likes Alex Jones. He wants you to know that he doesn’t agree with much of what they say, but he also wants you to know that off camera they’re the nicest guys. If we all have fatal flaws, this is Joe’s: his insistence on seeing value in people even when he shouldn’t, even when they’ve forfeited any right to it, even when the harm outweighs the good. It comes from a generous place, but it amounts to careless cruelty. He just won’t write people off, and then he compounds the sin by throwing them a lifeline at the moment when they least deserve it.
Once a man is unpersoned, the shunning is supposed to continue forever. You must hate the sinner, and if you do not, this itself is a form of sin. It is, in the author’s own words, Joe’s fatal flaw. Talking to the sinner is forbidden. Forgiveness of the sinner is forbidden. It does not matter if the sin was three years ago, or thirty years ago. It does not matter if the sin was a casually insensitive joke, or a Virginia governor donning blackface in a yearbook. Although we might suspect that Governor Northam may have been given some level of a temporary pass for his Democratic party allegiance. Political expediency may delay your final unpersoning, for a time. Then again, it may not. Courts of public opinion are fickle, prone to whimsy, and as cruel as any schoolyard bully. There is a reason the justice system is not put to popular vote, after all.
His invitation to Jones was indefensible, and his defense was even worse. I had assumed going in that Rogan would explain himself at the top, similar to what he’d done after booting the Jack Dorsey interview. But he didn’t. He went the other way. He promised a “fun” interview with Jones, as if it was a joyful, long-awaited reunion rather than offensive for even existing, and he assured his listeners that “you’re gonna love it.”
Even before Jones sat down, Rogan seemed unpierced by the genuine anguish that Jones had caused the parents of murdered first graders. I won’t quote anything Alex Jones said on the podcast, so just picture a walrus with a persecution complex, or a talking pile of gravel. They got the Sandy Hook stuff out of the way first—Jones evaded responsibility, Joe grumbled about the media—and then they got into what Jones was really there to talk about: aliens, suicidal grasshoppers, Chinese robot workers, that kind of thing. My breaking point was at the 21-minute mark, when Jones apologized for “ranting” and Rogan replied, “It’s okay—I want you to rant.”
Alex Jones is presumed by the author to have caused genuine anguish to the parents of Sandy Hook shooting victims. First, it bears mentioning that this claim is extremely dubious. If somebody doesn’t wish to listen to Alex Jones, he doesn’t have to. I’m not exactly in the Alex Jones fan club, and I generally avoid listening to him. Similarly, if Joe’s interview of Alex Jones starts to cause somebody distress for whatever reason, well, you can watch something else.
Similarly, the author notes that “Jones evaded responsibility.” What does this even mean? Alex Jones was not responsible for the shooting. There are many things one might conceivably pin on Alex Jones, to include those scam supplements sold under the InfoWars brand. But Sandy Hook – and the feelings of the victims and their families – isn’t one of them. To the author, however, it does not matter. Alex Jones is a sinner. He should therefore be unpersoned, and anyone who even talks to the unperson is himself guilty of a sin.
Perhaps a sin worthy of unpersoning as well.
I’m glad, though, that the men of America have Joe Rogan to motivate and inspire and educate them in limitless ways, including how to recognize a moron. Whatever gets the job done. It might unsettle some of us that we must rely on his fans to separate the good stuff from the bad, but that’s the hard work of being a responsible adult in the modern era—knowing what you should consume and what you shouldn’t. We all need to decide for ourselves, but trust me on this one: You can skip the mushroom coffee.
In the end, the author comes around – perhaps reluctantly – to the view I took above. For this I give him some credit, for I get the general impression from his writing that this view was difficult for him. He likes Joe at some level, but he is conflicted about his status as a sinner. But he does explain that you are responsible for the content you choose to consume. Joe Rogan’s time to be unpersoned has not yet come, at least in the author’s view. For now, perhaps, the court of public opinion has not ruled against him.
But once the you are deemed have offended the sensibilities of popular culture sufficiently, well, your time will come. There is no appeal, no forgiveness, no coming back from your unpersoning. Once a sinner, always a sinner. Once a sinner, never a real person again. You just become another caricature, a guy in a Hitler mustache, a cartoon villain, upon whom anything may be blamed, up to and including school shootings you had nothing to do with.
Hate the sinner, regardless of the sin: the new mantra of mob justice.
This is just a rant, but why have a blog if you can’t rant and rave about what irritates you?
I’ve tried to articulate for some time just why SJWs and other assorted Leftist culture warriors irritate me. Oh, their predilection to call everybody literally Hitler is surely annoying. And so is the fact that many of them can’t even determine what gender they want to be tomorrow.
But above all else, one attributes stands tall: they dramatize everything.
Every time regular people want to have a good time, drama queen SJWs have to fuck it up. Are you playing a video game, my good man? Why, did you know the butt crack depth of one of the main characters indicates that one of the designers objectified women (this was from 2017, but a classic)? Checkmate!
For the moment, let’s concede every point the SJWs made. Maybe the guy who designed Tracer liked butts with deep cracks, and objectified the hell out of his character design. AM I SUPPOSED TO CARE? Why is this supposed to interfere with my enjoyment of some video game?
Some football player calls Nike and tells them the Betsy Ross flag is racist or something, and they ought to not sell some special overpriced shoe with that flag on it. Why does anyone care?
Hell, why am I even writing this right now? It gives me a headache just thinking about it.
I’m tired of giving even enough of a fuck to even respond to charges like this. Even if everything the SJW said was true, why does it matter? With them, everything is outrage, all the time, about things that approach meaninglessness.
But it’s not just SJWs who do this. It’s a trait of the West in general, I suspect. When I’m DJing, sometimes a person will come up to me and say I should play some song because “it’s my song!” Look, I get wanting to hear something you like at the party/club/whatever, but it’s not your song. It’s not your personal life soundtrack.
Maybe this sounds pedantic, but I’m really trying to make a point here. The way a lot of folks act, it’s like they are living in a movie, like they have their soundtracks, and their dramatic moments, and their great quests and battles – but these are nothings. Trifles. It’s some drunk girl wanting to hear Beyonce. It’s some SJW fighting “the Nazis” (mostly just regular people who actually have jobs). It’s some grifter shouting on about sexism in video games.
It’s all worthless. A waste of time, life, energy, everything. If the life of someone like this was made into a movie, it would be the most boring movie ever made. And even there, it would get worse. Make an atrocious movie like the girl Ghostbusters remake, and when it bombs you can claim oppression. You’re not a shitty movie-maker, you’re a warrior fighting sexist Nazis.
And that’s part of why every enemy of these folks is a Nazi. Vaguely disagreeable person doesn’t sound so dramatic as NAZI. Regular Joe just doesn’t have the same dramatic impact as literally-Hitler. Even Donald Trump, as bombastic and seemingly-dramatic as he can be, is too boring and normal for these people. He must be elevated to Adolf Hitler status for the dramatization fantasy to continue.
“I’m fighting the Patriarchy!”
Give me a break, you’re probably an overweight slob pissed that she’s not getting top quality dick.
“I’m fighting racism!”
You’re probably out protesting because some dumbass got high and charged a cop, because clearly if you think the cops are out to get you, the best idea is to charge them and give them an excuse to shoot you.
“I’m punching Nazis!”
The people uttering this usually look like their fists would shatter if they impacted anything more solid than a plate full of jello.
“So today, they want to pretend to be a superhero punching Nazis, and tomorrow they change their minds and want to go on a drinking binge in the club district and find the most Nazi-like human they can, and have sex with him. They are all heroes of their own little fantasy narratives, like every song is a personal movie soundtrack, and every event is a momentous struggle. Hailing a taxi cab is the equivalent of the Battle of the Bulge, getting up the stairs in a drunken stupor is the evacuation of at Dunkirk, losing weight is a quest Jason and his Argonauts would fail.
I guess burn more calories than you eat isn’t as dramatic as a quest to the ends of the Earth.
A poop swastika splattered on the wall of a University bathroom is a racial struggle reminiscent of the Million Man March. Enforcing border security is the same as Auschwitz. Donald Trump is literally Hitler. PewDiePie is a fucking Nazi. Calling an obese woman fat is the same as stoning them to death for being raped. Making a sexual joke is literal rape. Abortion is sacred, but everything we do is For the Children ™.”
Today, we have folks clamoring about Student Loan debt, saying that it’s horribly unfair, and they can’t possibly pay it off, so they need the taxpayer to step in and wipe the slate clean. Look, I’m the first one to admit the universities ripped these people off (and the fact that student loan debt can’t be cleared by bankruptcy is a tacit form of indentured servitude), but it’s still an overly dramatic take. I really loathe this notion of “I can’t get out of debt.”
Yes, you can. It may be unpleasant. You may have to suffer, relatively speaking of course (who really suffers poverty of the absolute sort in the West?). But you can do it. Save more than you make (and put it toward debt) isn’t a hard concept, and can be done even on extremely modest incomes. It’s just like losing weight, except with your finances. Burn more calories than you take in. Not an impossible concept, but one that requires willpower and exchanging the dramatic fantasy world for the real one.
Moreover, why should I trust some SJW college grad who can’t pay his bills to change the world for the better? Please, you can’t even change your own life, what makes you think I want to grant you power over mine? You fucked yours up.
Browsing Instagram, you see overweight body positive models saying that they are true beauty and all that. You see thirsty men lining up to say “I love you, you’re so beautiful” as if this 300lb Internet random was going to say “oh, wow, thirsty comment 7512.5 of the day, I should totally give this guy my phone number.” Yeah, your inner beauty really shines through when you’re texting dick pics to randos.
Go to social media, and every political post is serious business. Pick a topic – any political topic, really – and you’re sure to see a flame war over it. Oh no! Someone disagreed with me on the relative sales tax rate in Hillsborough county BURN THE HERETIC… ER… HITLER!
It’s not even an exclusively Leftist thing. Yes, I know, the Right has been losing the culture war for decades. Hell, long before I was ever born. But despite all the Leftist advances, your quality of life isn’t that bad. Everything that goes wrong in your life isn’t because of a Leftist boogeyman.
Yeah, I don’t like them either (my endorsement of helicopters should have been the first hint), and I sure as hell don’t want them anywhere near the levers of power. But let’s be real. Your life isn’t that bad yet. We’re not Venezuela. Could we be at some point? Sure. Put enough Communists in charge and you could fuck up a whorehouse in a Thai port. But it’s not there right now. The boogaloo isn’t tomorrow, okay? Somebody chill out.
But at least Rightist over-dramatization has some basis in some fact, somewhere. Communists really do turn productive places into shitholes. Leftist dramatization has completely left the reservation. I remember when some nutjob of a “scientist” was outraged that black holes were described as black.
More headaches. Does anyone have time for this shit anymore?
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs apparently demands that, once people have reached our relative level of prosperity, everybody needs to invent drama to feel relevant.
Maybe the Internet and Social Media has exacerbated this. Emojis and all-caps arguing abounds. Collective attention spans have seemingly dropped like a rock. Go on Facebook and it looks like every idiot you know is living the high life, even the chick protesting that she’s not getting a $15/hr minimum wage. Even that woman somehow managed to snag a selfie in Acapulco last year. But she’s suffering! And she needs your help!
Some woman takes a picture of her beer and hashtags it #craftbeer! Who cares? Drink it, or don’t. Why is this a big deal? Everybody posts pictures of vacations, and new cars. Look at me! I’m so awesome! Envy me! That time some chick staggered home from a night of clubbing, hard drinking, drugs, and anonymous sex naturally skipped this process. The piles of bills rolling in every month for credit cards, car loans, etc… those don’t make the Facebook grade. But hey, sure, you’re a real winner at life, I’m sure. We should all be just like you.
Saw some t-shirt the other day that proclaimed an overweight black woman as “the queen.” Yeah, okay, I presume I should bow? And I love all of this wine paraphernalia. You have to have a bunch of $10 Target signs proclaiming you like wine for some crazy reason I can’t fathom. Can’t just drink it and enjoy it? No, it’s got to be a status thing.
Drama, drama, drama.
I’m surprised sometimes that people can sustain this level of dramatization in their lives. I couldn’t, I’m far too lazy to contemplate expending that much effort on fantasy. I’d rather shut my door and not talk to anybody for a week. Gods, wouldn’t that be a vacation? I wouldn’t post it on Facebook if it happened, but I’d damned well enjoy it.
I don’t know if all these people really believe in the dramatization that surrounds them. I don’t know if the fantasy is real to them, or if under it all there’s an inner cynicism driving all of their status-signalling actions. Is it instinct or learned behavior? Is it both?
I don’t know. And I’m not sure I can summon a sufficient number of fucks to care.
But one thing is certain: there is far more drama, far more outrage, around us than is necessary.
A friend of mine formerly known as Glomar Responder (Mr. X) on Twitter sent over this screed as a guest post. It’s an interesting commentary on the bifurcation we’re seeing in libertarianism. I’ve spoken on this matter before, as my natural inclination is toward smaller government and so I have historically been rather sympathetic toward libertarianism. But there are problems in libertarianism that continually get overlooked, and an increasing number of “left-libertarians” making their political debut. There are open-borders libertarians who do not realize they are slitting their own throats by encouraging, or at least allowing, the mass importation of people who work counter to their goals. It’s clear there is something going on, and Glomar explores the idea below.
Met with a high school friend last night, talked a bit about how libertarianism became a leftist shit show so quickly after the so-called “libertarian moment” where it looked like the Rand Pauls and Ted Cruzes were the new hotness in politics.
And she has a theory.
Libertarianism isn’t one movement, it’s two.
The popular political branch that actually got people elected and polls well in the southeast is based in the classical Anglo-Saxon system, as carried on especially by the British Isles border peoples. It basically stopped evolving at Locke.
And when founded in the US, it was REACTIONARY. It was a restoration of the rights of Englishmen and the small, local systems that the border Welsh, Scots, and Irish were used to.
So you have volunteer fire departments based on the militia system. You have Sheriffs with real law enforcement power, instead of a constabulary. You have common law rather than large bodies of code.
And then there’s intellectual libertarianism, which continued to evolve, especially in France, Germany, and Spain.
And Proudhon and Stirner had a huge influence on them.
So you get your John Henry Mackays, linking libertarian political thought with sexual promiscuity and outright pederasty.
Something that would have gotten you lynched by the “libertarians” of e.g. Kentucky.
So, unfortunately, “intellectual” libertarians run the movement, such as it is. Politicians and elites are far more likely to gravitate towards intellectual movements based in French and German philosophy than they are to say “hey, maybe those rednecks and hillbillies have preserved a great system, and we should adopt it.”
So you get think tanks, and a few college professors, pushing “respectable” libertarian thought that is atheist (due to both French revolution era and German influences), sexually promiscuous and experimental, and radically atomized individualist (because Stirner).
And the people it attracts in the academy and in young political life are the white upper middle class degenerates, because it gives them permission to be freaks, without giving them the obligations to the worker from classical communism, the obligations to the progressive stack from Frankfurt branches, or the obligations to God from social conservativism.
“Dude, weed” is actually their ideal sales pitch to the classical Anglo-Saxon borderer libertarians.
Because the Stirnerites think they should be able to have their hedonistic experiences as they choose, and the hillbillies think “you think Washington can tell me what crops I can grow? Fuck you, buddy.”
It’s a solid point of agreement between the two. As is shrinking government intervention in their lives generally.
But the hillbillies, their basic stance is “leave me the fuck alone, I can get by just fine with my family, neighbors, and church.”
And the intellectuals are much more “leave me the fuck alone, the child consented and anyway I’m raising average wages worldwide by making cheap crap in China without any trade barriers.”
You’ve got a bunch of government minimalists and localists on the one hand, who have a very long history of voluntary participation and civic duty.
They don’t like a distant crown passing edicts on them, but they’re cool with showing up at the fire hall when the chief tells them to.
And then you’ve got a bunch of people who want to be left alone because they’ve bought into the atomized individualism that lets them live without obligation. They can fuck who they want, exploit who they want, and act like general eternal teenagers.
“Fuck you, dad,” the political movement. So abortion is cool, because “the child is trespassing on my body.”
And voluntary hierarchy? REEEEEEEEEEEE!
The former is attractive or at least understandable to many normie Americans, because it’s just a more radical version of the system they were born and raised in.
They can see the Jefferson in it.
The latter is repulsive to most of them.
It rejects many of their fundamental institutions. Of course we serve in the military (militia tradition, remember).
Of course we have laws regulating marriage (still religious, never adopted the atheism of the Continental libertarian/anarchists).
And a few decades of middle and lower class guys going to college and reading e.g. Rand has kinda mashed the two together in many places.
But there’s still a fundamental divide, and it’s becoming more apparent as the “I don’t owe you or your culture shit” libertarians side with the left.
Child drag queens don’t bother them.
Why would they? So long as I don’t make you do it, I don’t owe you shit.
Immigration? Borders are just imaginary lines, statist, stop making my lawn mowing more expensive.
No, I don’t owe my neighbor’s kids shit. They should lower their price and compete with the Guatemalan lawn crews and their riding mowers.
They have to speak Spanish at school? Oh well, we don’t have an official language.
That lawn crew will eventually vote away my buttsex? Well, I’ll be dead.
Libertarian VOTERS didn’t change.
They’re still just classical Anglos (or at least spiritual anglos).
But the money and the “movement,” organized libertarianism, doesn’t represent them, it was always fundamentally different.
Anyway, long story short she’s convinced her formerly very active libertarian husband to disassociate from movement libertarianism because Darth Fonzie is cringe and gross, and Latin American socialists don’t vote with her very, very white daughter’s freedom and interests in mind.
Long ago, I spent a year and change working retail. The economy was in a downturn at the time, and I took whatever work I could score. It’s not something I’ve thought about often, except that the other day it popped into my head how similar the “customer is always right” philosophy is to a feature of Leftist politics.
You see, Leftists see racism/sexism/bigotry/whatever in everything, even where it does not exist, even in cases like Jussie Smollett where it is blatantly made up out of whole cloth. There is a functional similarity to angry retail customers.
Consider the following example: I worked in the shoe area of a department store. The store had a policy where shoes would not be accepted for return if they were clearly worn, unless the shoes were defective in some manner (which was handled via a different procedure than regular returns). The sign stating this policy was clearly posted on the register, and workers were instructed to remind the customer of this policy upon sale.
It happened often enough that someone would try to return shoes that were clearly worn (they’d have dirt on the soles, or stains, etc…), and demand a refund. Some would still be dripping mud, when the customer made the absurd claim that they hadn’t been worn. Invariably, they would get angry upon being denied the return. Such customers would claim that I wasn’t doing my job, or I was a bad person (and please, could they complain about me to a manager), or offer increasingly improbable stories – and variations of the same story – explaining how the signs of wear weren’t really evidence of the shoe being worn.
Some would threaten to have me fired, others would yell at the assistant manager, and then the store manager, and insinuate claims of discrimination (oh, you won’t take the shoes back because I’m black, is that it?). This isn’t unique to the shoe department at an old department store, though. Anyone who has worked retail will have long lists of situations like these.
Another example was when the store management tried to push store credit card applications. Cashiers were required to ask the customer if they wished to save 10% on their purchase by opening a credit card with the store. Now, this was one area where I disagreed with store policy. I hated trying to push credit, and some customers would get hostile if either denied the credit account (and thus the promised 10% discount), or when I asked for their Social Security number. I fully understand that. I wouldn’t want to give out my social to some random person at a department store either. BUT this was how it worked. I had no choice in the matter. I had to ask, or I would lose my job.
Angry customers would then say that they wanted to get me fired, especially if the system sent back a denial.
The latter example is similar to how many Leftists claim that a system of oppression is in place that discriminates against X people, and that if you’re white and you aren’t actively trying to dismantle this system, you’re a bad person. Well, even if it exists, what do you want me to do about it? Am I supposed to, as in the credit example, lose my job because you’re pissed about something someone else did? I have no control here.
In the nasty return example, I was often unsure if the customer really believed their bullshit stories – that they had convinced themselves they hadn’t actually worn the shoes, or believed their child when he swore he never wore them – or if they were actively trying to screw the store over for free shoes. It is often that way with angry Leftists. Do they really believe a white guy wearing dreadlocks is racial discrimination? Or are they just exceptionally gullible? Did they convince themselves of this belief?
The saying “the customer is always right” is a load of crap. Leftist claims of oppression are likewise. Look, we all see the dirt on the soles here. We see the Jussies of the world oppressing themselves. We see the people irrationally freaking out over some white girl wearing a kimono to an art exhibit. None of this is real. It’s all either an act, or some kind of very special stupidity.
The only question is, are the Leftists just weapons-grade morons, or are they actively trying to screw us? At some point, it no longer matters. No, you moron, if you went trudging through the mud in your shoes, you can’t just bring them back. How did you ever think this was going to work?
The tactics are the same. They’ll call your manager and complain about you and try to get you fired for having the wrong opinions. Leftists have this vindictive mentality that mirrors those of spurned, angry customers. Oh, you didn’t risk your livelihood to please their whims? You bigot, you! They’ll scream and yell at you, and make a nuisance of themselves in public. They’ll rant and rave about getting you fired. They will gleefully see you ruined over something you didn’t do, and don’t have any control over in the first place. Even if you submit to them, they’ll still hate you and see you as the enemy. It’s very bizarre seeing entitled people whining about your entitlement.
And then you get incidents like the GameStop transgender, where we have a literal merger of an Angry Customer and the Entitled Leftist into some kind of Uber-Asshole, created in a laboratory and assembled from the parts of lesser assholes:
The Gamestop employee no doubt had a difficult decision to make when addressing this person: is he really a would-be she, or a he merely dressing slightly feminine? Who the Hell knows anymore? But woe be to the cashier who guesses wrong.
This, of course, becomes moral ammunition in whatever transaction is going on here. “Give me my fucking money back.” Is the he-she genuinely angry because of a pronoun, or is this all some kind of scam to get some kind of treatment?
Or, worse, did he-she get up on the wrong side of the bed and just want to get somebody fired from his job?
Angry customers are fascinating in how fast they go from not even noticing you exist – you’re just a wage-earner, after all, and entirely beneath notice – to having a personal desire to ruin your life over the most trivial of things, most often things you don’t even have control over. I can’t go back in time and change the policy of early America on slavery in the South. What the Hell does that have to do with me, personally? And what do you want me to do now? Do you want me to quit my job and give it to a “person of color?” Do you want my house, my car, my money? What?
It’s like when you say to an angry customer that you’re sorry, and while you didn’t come up with the policy, you work here and have to abide by it. The angry customer might say ‘well if you don’t like the policy, why do you work here?’ Because I need to eat, jackass.
There is this bizarre notion that corporations and employees must have some kind of singular political belief – a Leftist one, naturally. Companies owned by admitted Rightists have to deal with this bullshit all the time. Chick-fil-a had those protests some time back because one of the owners wasn’t a big fan of gay marriage. So what? For one, what does that have to do with serving chicken? And secondly, there was no evidence the owner’s personal beliefs had anything to do with store policies. Chick-fil-a did not ask if you were gay during a job interview.
But, it’s the end of the world if a Rightist might actually own a business. Worse, I suppose, would be to be a Rightist employee. If you make the wrong joke at the wrong time, in the wrong social media space, you could have an angry mob calling your employer and getting you fired for a bad tweet.
The hostility is so much like the angry customer it’s hard to not see the connection. Except to say in this case, companies are firing people upon the demand of people are are not even customers. What is this, the theoretically possible future customer is always right?
When the economy picked back up again, I was glad to get out of that retail job. I do have a level of sympathy for people who deal with that attitude on a daily basis. But with the expansion of Leftist politics into every aspect of life, including your personal life, your job, and your business, pretty soon everybody will be dealing with something like the angry customer, screaming at you and blaming you for things that are objectively not your doing.
Soon, everybody will learn what working retail is like. And I tell you, it will suck.
Many moons ago, Milo Yiannopoulos told us that the demand for hate crimes far outstrips the supply. This has been obvious to many on the Right for quite a long time now. Jussie Smollett’s hoax certainly wasn’t the first such incident, though it is unusually prominent. In this, we see the Media’s journey into a Pravda-like arm of the DNC reach its final conclusion. Like Alyssa Milano, they desperately want the image of violent MAGA hat loons running around to be true. Their desire finally trumped the last vestiges of integrity they still possessed.
But beyond this, as Tom Kratman once told me, the Left does not understand us. They do not know their enemy, though we know them a bit better than they know us. Jussie’s faked hate crime smelled wrong to us from the beginning, and not just because of the lack of credible evidence, but because the Left’s conception of who and what we are is so out of touch reality. Their image of MAGA hat wearers is completely at odds with reality.
To explain this in more detail, I will tell you a story. A friend of mine used to be a bouncer. He’s a Rightist, and has always been at least vaguely conservative. And he did witness (and deal with) a homophobic “hate” crime (I loathe the term hate crimes in general, but let’s play along for the moment).
He was at a seedy biker bar a couple decades ago, and a very obviously flamboyant gay man entered the premises. The gay man appeared to be oblivious to the unwelcoming looks of the bar’s regulars. At some point, the gay man decided to go to the bathroom, and some drunken, addled bikers followed him into the john with obvious intentions.
My friend, naturally, followed the bikers. When he got in, the gay man was already being attacked, and my friend had a real hard time dealing with them – they were bikers, after all – but he successfully fought them off and told the gay man to leave before it got any worse for him.
This is how a crime against a gay man, motivated by his homosexuality, would likely take place. If Jussie was walking down the street, acting particularly flamboyant, and a couple of drunken guys accosted him in the street, it would be believable. Crimes of this sort aren’t planned, generally. Nobody is carting around rope and bleach, while pointedly wearing MAGA hats, to find a homosexual to beat down. If someone has an issue with gays, the attack is likely to be unplanned, spontaneous, and like the case my friend dealt with, it will probably involve copious amounts of alcohol.
Most Rightists don’t care much one way or the other if a gay man walks by, or enters a bar, or whatever. Contrary to Leftist belief, most of us don’t care who you are screwing. If there is any annoyance, it’s probably with the sort of folks who like to wave their sexual preferences around like a badge of honor and won’t shut up about it. Even then, that is usually a minor annoyance, barely above that of people who drive slow in the left lane. But if a Rightist were to care, and take offense, and want to hurt someone over it, it would go down like the incident in the biker bar.
It would not go down like the Jussie Smollett hoax. Or the “poop Swastika” incident at Missou. Or the drum-beating Indian complaining about “the Smirk heard ’round the world.”
Rather, these fake hate crimes are presented in the manner a Leftist would conduct a hate campaign. Leftists are fond of indirect, symbolic tactics. PETA-tards enjoy throwing paint on people wearing leather or fur. They are fond of weird symbolism like dressing up as bloodied animals up for slaughter. See the parallels with the noose and bleach supposedly dumped on Jussie? It’s basically PETA-behavior, but staged as a Rightist thing.
No. If a Rightist is going to have a problem with you, the odds are he’s going to punch you in the face. Or follow you into a bathroom and beat you down. The Right is much more fond of directness. Does anybody really think, say, a redneck is going to dump bleach on you and run away? Do you think he cares about the symbolism of a noose, or that he’s going to go out of his way to wear a certain hat – so as to make the right fashion statement during the attack? No. If he has a problem, he’s going to get in your face, probably punch it repeatedly, and walk away when he feels his point has been made.
In this the Left betrays how little they understand us. For even their hoaxes seem like bad parodies to us. It’s what a Leftist would do, only reversed in ideological polarity. It’s not what a Rightist would do. They don’t get us. Their rank-and-file doesn’t have any clue who they are dealing with anymore. Even the Media is too stuck on Leftism to understand anymore. There was a time, perhaps, when wiser Leftists would have thought “well, that doesn’t sound a whole lot like them… maybe we should check into this a little more.”
That time has passed.
This is profoundly dangerous to us all. Because, not knowing us, they cannot understand where the limits are. They’ve been butting up near our maximum levels of tolerance for some time now. Sooner or later, one of them is going to exceed that boundary because he doesn’t even know it’s there, anymore.
It won’t go down any better for them than it did the oblivious gay man walking into the wrong biker bar at the wrong time. And given that no Rightist will be willing to stick up for them, as my friend did back then, it’s likely to go down much, much worse.
When the Internet was relatively young, I remember folks telling me that things were going to be different. With the rise of blogging, the rise of conservative talk radio, with the availability of alternative media in the vein of Andrew Breitbart’s vision, things were going to finally be different.
We were going to break the Left’s stranglehold on journalism, academia, entertainment – all of it.
That never happened.
Andrew Breitbart was, in many ways, the strongest of us all when it came to challenging Old Media. He was our Alexander the Great, charging into Persia. And like Alexander, he was taken from us too soon. Some of his proteges remain with us. I am a great fan of Kurt Schlichter, for instance. But with all due respect to them – and my respect is great and genuine – they are not enough.
One of the unforeseen complications was that the Left gained control of social media as well. Facebook and Twitter censors are anything but objective, and their subtle (but pervasive) enforcement of Leftist norms stacks the deck against us. We are gamblers at the casino, and though we may win here and there, the House always wins in the end.
When Rightists create alternative platforms, they are always seen as just that, alternatives. Copies. Not the original. When Rightists create something very original, Leftist mobs show up to tell us how racist it is. Revenue streams are dried up by Leftist activism. Even payment processing can be cancelled underneath them.
Media power has not waned. Though Donald Trump has created a backlash against the media among some Rightists, all too many still believe them. The “smirk” incident blew up on social media, and many Rightists were quick to condemn the smirking kid and support the indian drummer. Eventually, the truth got out – at least to people willing to hear it – yet the damage was already done.
Next time, the media will tar another Rightist with some terrible non-crime, and again, people will leap to condemn the ‘perp’ because the media has declared him guilty by fiat. The Ocasio-Cortez Amnesia Effect (a variant of the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect) is in full effect.
Mainstream Media is still incomparably mighty. If they targeted you, as they did the smirk kid, could you weather the storm without severe consequences?
No. Nobody could. Even Donald Trump, a billionaire and President of the United States, has serious trouble fighting back against them, and if there is any Rightist more powerful than he, at the moment, I am not aware of him.
At any point, you could become the focus of a shitstorm merely by virtue of a journalist taking notice of you. They could travel to your pizza place in the middle of nowhere and make you the focus of a national gay rights scandal. They could threaten to expose you to public ridicule and mobs if you should dare to post a political meme on reddit. Or, you could make a bad joke on Twitter and be subjected to a massive online mob and fired before your plane even lands.
Journalists are Character Assassins. Their job is not to report the news – not anymore (if it was ever this). Rather, since real assassination has become bad form, their new role is to conduct a different variety of assassination on behalf of their Leftist handlers. This craft is not practiced on the margins, or by lone wolves. It is practiced openly, and on a massive scale. Dig deep. You know this is true. We all know journalists exist to destroy people. Now, they may be practiced at cloaking this behavior with honeyed language – you’ll be famous, you’ll get national attention – all that is just an effort to con you into consenting to your own character assassination.
Social media was supposed to be our counter, our grassroots defense against this behavior. For a time it kinda-sorta worked. Dan Rather and his “fake but accurate” hit piece was quickly exposed. The word got out. Rightists were on the offense. The rise of Andrew Breitbart and his cadre of culture warriors was much overdue, but extremely effective. Even today, our victories – rare as they might be – are through this medium.
Nonetheless, the Left has gradually assumed control over social media with such Orwellian ministries as the Twitter Trust and Safety Council. What next? Will Facebook create a Ministry of Truth? With Google semi-openly supporting the Left, our access to this medium is gradually being stripped away.
How does this happen? Every time, the Left gains control over the institutions. Anything not explicitly Right-wing is soon dominated by the Left. Anything explicitly Right-wing is ignored and tarred from the get-go.
This is the one thing the Left has always been excellent at. They are the experts in subversion, in stacking the deck for their side. They are the ultimate cheaters. Put a Leftist in control of, say, an HR department… and soon they only hire Leftists, if they can possibly get away with it. Before long, the organization is entirely Leftist. Jonathan Haidt described this process in certain academic fields.
It is a common Leftist contention that “people of color” are marginalized, pushed to the fringes and “invisibled.” This may have been true pre-1960, but it is true no longer. Today, it is anybody right-of-center who is marginalized. Your skin color does not protect you, as Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell can surely attest. Everything SJWs accuse us of doing, they do… to us.
The unmitigated gall of these people is staggering. They accuse Rightists of “cyber-bullying.” But if anyone is guilty of this, it is the Left (see Justine Sacco’s story). They accuse us of violence, but it is Antifa who roams the streets with the implicit promise of violence should you dare to disagree. Some would think this is projection, but it is something much worse. Projection happens when you don’t want to believe a truth about yourself, so you project it onto another.
Progs know full well what they are doing, and they like it. Kurt Schlichter is fond of saying that these people hate you and want you dead. Generally speaking, he’s not wrong.
There is a relationship here. Political masters command the media, which in turn drives what is permissible on social media, which in turn mobilizes the Leftist masses against targets selected for character assassination.
They are also expert in defanging Rightists and preventing them from coming to the aid of their compatriots, using guilt trips, misinformation, and peer pressure.
They are not reporters of the news. They are Character Assassins. That is their real job. Everything else is a smokescreen.
I don’t know how we fix this at any kind of meta level, but I do know where to start: do not listen to them. They are liars. They are assassins. Trump is right when he calls them the enemy. We’ve long known this about them, but few speak it openly. Thus it may be Trump’s most important observation.