When it comes to principles, I can really only speak for myself, but I suspect what I’m about to discuss is something that holds true for most people. We naturally hold having principles to be higher, that is to say morally superior, to not having principles, or to violating them arbitrarily. However, this can lead to absurdities such as guilt-ridden, suicidal cultures (see: most of the West right now).
Most people, I imagine, would agree that non-aggression is generally a good principle. Indeed, Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists have this enshrined as a core principle. Violence can only be used on someone who, in turn, has violated the non-aggression principle. This sounds well and good on the surface, but is subject to complexities. Imagine for a moment that you are sure – absolutely sure – that someone is about to commit murder. But he has not made his intentions to do so clear to others, nor has he actually done it yet. By the non-aggression principle, are you allowed to preemptively deal with him accordingly? Or must you wait until the violence has been committed?
Must, for example, a society of Libertarians allow hordes of Communists into their borders? Communists, I might add, who express a desire to kill them and take their property for redistribution, should they obtain sufficient numbers. Taken to its logical endpoint, strict adherence to the principle may well result in the extinction, both of the society in question, and adherence to the principle itself.
It goes much deeper. Pacifists would appear to favor peace as a principle. However, many of them take the principle to absurd lengths, such as not even fighting back when said murderer starts killing people. Without restraint on murderers, without defensive action against them, soon there are many such murderers. Violence increases when pacifism is used, for the violent are no longer restrained by fear that they may suffer consequences for their actions.
Pacifists are moral cowards. If their principles incline them toward peace they, seemingly-paradoxically, must be willing to fight for that peace.
Libertarians, I suspect, are not this bad. I think many of them have merely failed to understand how virulent Marxists really are, how easily they infiltrate and subvert whole societies. They haven’t articulated a principle that will satisfy their disdain for unjust violence, that can simultaneously protect them from the unjust violence of those who are willing to game the system for their benefit. Some say that if you eliminate the welfare state, the impetus for Marxists to come will end. That is true on an individual level, but it fails on a meta level. Conquest, you see, is a motivation all on its own.
Yet nonetheless, principles still carry with them greater moral weight, and a lack of principles – being completely arbitrary, in other words – results in the very same tyranny we seek to avoid. Marxists are quite arbitrary in the application of their own beliefs. A rapist may be excused if his politics are correct. A murderer may be pardoned if he is useful to the Party. Their only real principle is a constant striving for power. Power is good, with them. Nothing else really matters.
When one group adheres to principles – or at least tries to – and another does not, the one that does not is often granted political advantage. This is something we have seen with the Left (though sometimes on the Right, too) for many years. It has created a House advantage, so to speak, for the Left. Consider how every close election that resulted in a recount almost invariably resulted in mysterious piles of Democrat ballots being discovered. Or how Hillary won every coin toss against Bernie Sanders.
The principle for them is power. No more or less than that.
I don’t argue for us to abandon principles, however, for then we become like our enemy. The challenge, rather, is to articulate them – to ensure that they do not become a noose around our necks. For like pacifists leading to more violence, so too will poorly articulated principles ensure the extinction of our own principles.
One current example is when Rightists come out and champion the censorship campaigns of Facebook, Twitter, et al. The usual principle given as justification for this view is that private companies may censor speech on their property as much as they like. Having discovered that Rightists will often adhere to this principle even against their own obvious interests, Leftists have concentrated much of their recent efforts on subverting the Right from within businesses. Every day, more businesses declare open support for the Left, and disdain for the Right. Indeed, Nike’s use of Colin Kaepernick’s face in their advertisements has been boiling over the airwaves today. Papa Johns recently declared their affiliation with Social Justice. And the position of Starbucks on guns is known well enough. Most companies have a decidedly Leftist bent, these days. Exceptions exist, but not that many – at least not at the large company level.
Leftists realized that the Right would fight to the death if the government was openly used to suppress the Right (see the IRS scandal), but the Right would stand by passively if the same was done through businesses, due to strict adherence to the principles of private property. This is being used as a weapon against us.
I don’t have a specific fix for this problem in mind, though some ideas have come to mind (one may or may not involve helicopters – I plead the Fifth on that). In actuality, I would ask my readers how they would solve the principle problem here. This cannot be permitted to continue, or else we become moral cowards – and soon, not even that much, for the weapon will be bludgeoned over our heads until we are broken.
And let’s not kid ourselves. If this weapon is defeated, the Left will find another. They have no moral restrictions on what they may use against us, for their only principle is power. All else falls before that.
A few quickies for today. The first is a piece I found buried a few pages down on Instapundit. It accurately describes the zeitgeist of our age: celebrity worship:
We hear a lot about white privilege from liberals, but no one on the Left wants to talk about the most glaring privilege infesting our nation today: celebrity privilege.
Let’s start with football players who use company time to protest — what? I’m not quite sure what they’re protesting and what it has to do with football or the flag, but they’re out there raising their fists and bending their knees. While they’re being paid by their bosses to play football and abide by team rules, they inject their politics into the sporting experience and alienate customers.
Only someone with celebrity privilege could get away with that. The lowly office worker can’t speak his mind whenever and however he wants. The cashier at Chipotle can’t spout off about his political views and drive customers out the door. The assembly line worker can’t walk off the job to protest his latest beef with society.
Read the whole thing. It’s unvarnished truth. Celebrities lecture us about societal ills few of them ever experience. They have no skin in the game.
The second headline of the day: South Africa farm SEIZURE HORROR: List of white farmers facing expropriation ‘exposed’.
Let’s be honest. We all knew this was coming, at least anybody who has been paying attention. The (somewhat-but-not-really) peaceful interlude since the end of apartheid has come to an end. South Africa has gone full Zimbabwe. You never go full Zimbabwe.
But never mind that. An important point for Americans is that this is a ‘coming soon to a country near you’ event. Make no mistake, the SJWs would love to expropriate your property, too. They salivate over the opportunity.
Lastly, Sarah Hoyt has opined on a topic that bears considerable exploration. It has long been assumed that creative personalities are liberals. I mean, look at the first article a moment. The author of that piece assumes that almost all celebrities are Leftists. He wasn’t wrong. Sarah asks the question why?
Yes, I know, even great men are allowed to have a blind spot, but his is a doozy and three miles wide: even through everything he’s gone through, he still believes that the preponderance of liberals in the arts and creative professions is because “liberals are creative personalities, willing to take risks.”
Dear Lord. What is wrong with that wouldn’t fit in a library filled with books the size of the Oxford dictionary, in tiny print, the kind you need the magnifying glass to read (yes, I always wanted one of those. Nope, don’t have one.)
It starts with the fact that most “liberals” aren’t even capable of taking risks in thought. They want everything regimented, and directions from above about what to think about every minute subject or portion of a subject. And if you question any of their shibboleths, they call you racisss sexissss homophobic, even if what you’re discussing is taxes, or the price of books. These words are the equivalent of their putting fingers in ears and going lalalalala, then running away screaming for mommy/government/twitter mob.
It continues with the fact that the arts are dominated by liberals because they’re dominated by liberals. Of course liberals only hire/promote/give legitimacy to other liberals. Look, if you believed your opponents were evil incarnate, what would you think?
Leftists in positions of power are so certain of their innate rightness that they do not permit Rightists to share the limelight if it can possibly be avoided. Now, some few exceptional individuals on the Right manage to crack that glass ceiling once in a while. But in the other shaft, Leftists get a glass elevator to the top, and probably a couple of man servants to feed them grapes and fan them with palm fronds on the way up.
And, rather stupidly, the Leftists complain that we are the privileged ones. But in any event, Sarah is right. To infer that Leftists are more creative simply because more of them are famous is a category error. Milo once explained that creatives are more likely to rebel against the current order of things, whatever that order may be. If that is the case, which it may be, then we should expect a surge in creatives on the Right, because the Left controls polite society. The Left is the Establishment against which rebellion is necessary.
I don’t know that Milo is right about that. Sarah suggests that we’ve seen a rather more general decline in the recognition of creatives:
Fortunately the true artists and crazy people haven’t gone anywhere. They’re just not getting recognition which means a lot of them will die young and in despair, because yes, creative people are neurotic. But some won’t. And with the new tech some will find a way to reach the public. Their public.
I imagine in the days to come, we will see who is right on the matter. If Milo is, we should expect a resurgence in the following years, primarily on our side, for the Left will be bankrupt. If Sarah is right… well, we probably won’t. Not without a great deal of societal change.
Change that, I should note, probably needs to happen anyway.
The other day, I was talking with a good friend about hypersensitivity to racism, and other forms of discrimination. And just last weekend I had a similar conversation with my father-in-law while we were driving back from a funeral. Those events, combined with reading this piece of drivel, which appeared on my wall this afternoon, inspired this post.
Drew Habersang, the author of that screed, had a rather long story to tell about what was, in essence, a friend of his using an ethnic slur (I’m sure you can guess the one from the title) in his presence. Note the slur in question wasn’t directed at him, or about him, or, in fact, directed at much of anything in particular. It was used as a stand-in for a generic curse along the lines of “fucking shit” or “damnit asshole” during a tabletop game. If you’ve ever played a particularly rousing game of Monopoly, you’ve probably heard worse.
Now, before I tear this apart, let’s discuss an old tradition in my household, to which my close friends can attest: smoking cigars, drinking whiskey, and making tasteless jokes on my front porch. This wasn’t consciously started, except to say that my wife generally loathes the smell of cigars and has banished them to the front porch. So when I have friends over, I invariably go to smoke a cigar, and hand out stogies to anyone else who wants one. Soon, all the men are on the front porch while the women do… well, whatever women do during small social gatherings. I presume it is something intensely boring. But whatever.
Now, a bottle of whiskey is a prerequisite for cigar-smoking, in this blogger’s opinion. So that enters the mix, also. When you mix smoking, drinking, and several dudes bullshitting about random topics, you are sure to get something roughly similar on your front porch, I imagine. We insult one another in jest, and the insults are almost always ethnic and/or religious in nature. One friend of mine is of Irish ancestry, so the drunkard jokes write themselves. I have some Armenian in me, and so comparisons to Kim Kardashian’s rather… large assets are common. Certainly the jokes about cheapness abound, too. But no demographic group is spared the treatment. You will hear Polack jokes, Asian jokes, French jokes… and so on.
Well, except for one. For many such gatherings, there are two groups that are off limits: blacks and Jews. As it so happens, I have many Jewish friends. A great many, actually. So in my circles, Jewish jokes are generally permissible in the spirit of things – for they will rag on my ancestry with equal gusto. But those are still somewhat touchy in a way say, Italian jokes generally are not. Black jokes, of course, remain completely off limits. And judging from the reaction of Drew, the author of the aforementioned drivel, it is well that they remain off limits. This has all the hallmarks of a powder keg waiting to explode.
So why is this? Francis opined on it a few days ago. And full disclaimer (for again, this is a touchy subject, and I’m sure my readers can feel this almost instinctively), Francis is married to a Jewish woman and is a vociferous and frequent opponent of anti-Semitism. So let the hairs on your back settle back down, if you please. If they did go up, though, file that away for later in this post. You’ll need the observation.
There is a hypersensitivity at work here. A heightened and overactive threat-detection mechanism, perhaps. Whatever the mechanics of the thing, it is understandable. Jews did indeed suffer mightily in history, and are watchful for a future pogrom. Blacks did indeed suffer slavery and segregation.
And yet, this hypersensitivity is absolute and complete social poison.
Read that again, please. This is a poison pill. When you read Drew’s piece, you will notice how everything is colored through the lens of racism. He literally cannot see anything without suspecting secret racism behind it. And, furthermore, I have no doubt his friends are fully cognizant of this. They, not wishing to anger him or appear racist themselves (who does?), almost assuredly feel a constant social pressure to micromanage their words, gestures, and behavior around their friend. This, in turn, makes interacting with him less pleasant. This becomes self-reinforcing. Drew detects his friends act different about him, which fuels an assumption that the difference is due to racism, which in turn is detected by the friends, who now act even more different in an effort to avoid this very thing.
Everybody gets caught in a spiral of stupidity that no one can escape from.
All until somebody, in the heat of the moment, not thinking, breaks out a slur. Whether driven by bad luck, too much to drink, or some other mechanism, the micromanagement of offense is broken. And not even knowing how to handle this, the relationship of the man and his friends entirely breaks down, requiring him to write a letter to his friend, and considering abandoning the friendship altogether.
See how this works? Drew, like many American blacks, has a wall between him and the rest of us. Piercing that wall takes extra effort. He may even be entirely justified in how he arrived at the notion that the wall was necessary, just as a Jewish person is quite justified in worrying about pogroms and other such things, given the course of history.
However justified, though, the hypersensitivity works against healing and normalization of relations. It poisons relationships.
One thing I’ve noticed in the offensive front porch cigar conversations is that, despite a prolific use of extremely offensive things, everybody is closer together! There is no stepping on eggshells. My Jewish friend can call me a fat-assed Armenian, I can reply with a joke about cheapness, then I can turn around and say to my Irish friend, “damnit, we’re out of whiskey, who invited the Irishman?” Everybody laughs, has another round of drinks, and talks about some other thing. There is no micromanagement of behavior, no walking on eggshells.
If an SJW stuck a microphone on my front porch, he would die of apoplexy.
I don’t know how we solve this problem, or if it even can be solved. The story my father-in-law told me goes something like this. A dwarf he knew was working with a black woman, and the black woman called the dwarf a ‘midget’. The dwarf was angry at this, and the black woman was confused. She asked what she should call him, what the correct term was. Was it dwarf? Little person? And she asked why midget was so offensive to him in the first place.
The dwarf explained that calling him a midget would be like calling her a nigger. She immediately blew up at him. How dare he call her that! He explained that he did NOT call her that. He merely explained that the word ‘midget’ offended him in the same way. But like the incident in Drew’s screed, the context of the word didn’t matter. It didn’t matter that it wasn’t directed at her, that it was a mere explanation, that no offense was intended toward her. The word was uttered. The genie could not be put back in the bottle.
But it was likewise for the dwarf who was offended by her use of ‘midget’ when she intended no offense by it.
It is similar for some Jews finding out that the Pope Emeritus had said something that someone else had interpreted as anti-Semitic (it turns out it wasn’t anti-Semitic at all). No offense was intended, and it was pretty clear that was the case, but that did not matter. It felt wrong. The fact is, words are a mechanism for communication. You cannot divorce the word from the intent of the speaker, because the word is a mechanism for conveying intent.
I started to think if I suffered this condition myself. And truth is, I probably do. When the aforementioned Irish friend makes an Armenian joke, or an English joke, I laugh. But would I laugh as much if a Turk made that joke? Fortunately that’s a rare enough event that this has never been put to the test yet, but I hope I could take it. Still, how many such tripwires are in all of us? It would be best if we disarmed them, instead of erecting new ones as is the modern fashion.
I started thinking about how this goes in relation to the new darling of The New York Times: Sarah Jeong, and her tweets about white people. What’s the difference between her saying these things and my friends and I making fun of one another? Intent. Sarah doesn’t like white people, she makes it clear that it is her intention to insult them. She means it as an insult, not an off-color joke. Yet various media outlets have come to her defense to excuse her behavior. Ironically, the headline of that article is about not coming to her defense, and yet the author does so with gusto. The excuse given is that she was imitating someone else’s behavior. Again, what was the intent?
If Sarah was on my front porch, smoking a cigar, and made a Polack joke, it’d be funny. Read her tweets, though. Is there an undercurrent of good humor here, or an excuse made for bad intent?
We’re all becoming hypersensitive to matters of race, religion, etc… we have created minefields in our society, such that we have long divorced intent from perceived offense. Americans are looking for ways to be offended, or at least enough of us are. Once offended, one is granted a license to act as Sarah did (presuming one has the correct ethnicity, religion, or what have you), trash people with bad intent and get away with it. Many people covet this license greatly. They are permitted to be deliberately insulting assholes, and get treated as heroes for acting so.
I don’t know that Drew is this way. Actually, if anything, I sense a little bit of hope for him. I don’t know why precisely, but I get a vague sense that he is at least generally aware of how his hypersensitivity is coloring his viewpoint. It doesn’t change his behavior any, but realization is worth something, at least. Sarah Jeong, of course, is entirely unrepentant. She quite likes using her ‘I get to hate white men’ license to great effect.
However, the hypersensitivity is not just present in the traditionally “oppressed” classes (really, no one is oppressed in a First-world country, but whatever). It is also present in those of us who try to tiptoe around offense minefields. My friends and I are probably never closer together than when we’re saying things that would horrify SJWs. I think, once upon a time, Americans kind of bonded this way. Even, paradoxically, with historical immigrant groups. Italians and Irish, Polish and Jewish, etc… I suspect the ribbing went this way with all of them, and served to blend the new group with the old, eventually. It diffused actual inter-ethnic tensions, which are a matter of historical record. People used to loathe Irishman. Now nobody gives a shit. Why is that? It was actually an integration mechanism; a way to break down tribal barriers and meld into one people.
If you’ve ever seen the movie Gran Torino, you may have some idea of what I mean by this.
Yes, I know, for many groups it will be difficult to let go of the hypersensitivity, to let it rest. But before you write it off as impossible, remember Eva Mozes Kor, a Holocaust survivor who was experimented upon, who nonetheless was able to forgive one of her captors, shake his hand, and put the matter to rest. If that can be done… what excuse does a man like Drew really have? How can Sarah act as she does when she has suffered comparatively little?
Christianity is centered around forgiveness, and beyond the spiritual reasons for why this is good, there’s a practical one too: it can break down this wall of hypersensitivity to perceived offense, this lurking notion that harm is still intended, when it is not.
As a corollary, it may also expose the genuinely hateful people for who they really are. Deprived of her Marxist license to hate, Sarah Jeong would be outed as the disgusting individual she really is. And there are many more like her who, likewise, would be seen as such.
And then you too can enjoy a rousing discussion of bad jokes on your own front porch, fueled by cigars, whiskey, or whatever vices float your boat. And maybe then, men like Drew can actually enjoy being around their friends.
It’s probably all wishful thinking. The market for racism has never been better. The advantages the license to hate confers upon its wielder are tremendous. But if we don’t put a stop to this behavior, it will tear our country apart, and then we’re all pretty much screwed.
Today, I wish to discuss something that’s been on my mind off and on for a very long time. Pardon me if I stumble around it, for sometimes it is difficult to put a concept into words. I’ve discussed it on The Declination on more than one occasion, though perhaps clumsily. Nonetheless, I suspect it will be of vital importance in the days to come.
Leftists often compare Rightists to Nazis. It’s beyond cliche, these days. It is tiresome and it hinges on the most flimsy of rationalizations. Yet it begs the question: how do you know if you are becoming a tyrant? How do you know if your ideology has slid into evil?
Surely, even Nazis were once children, cared for and loved by someone. No doubt their parents had hopes for at least some of them. Dreams for them. As Tolkien explained for us in The Lord of the Rings, nothing is evil in the beginning. Not even Sauron himself. So how did they become evil? What led them there?
If you analyze tyrannical ideologies and the sort of mass mob insanity behind them, you will see a common thread: purity. Nazis obsessed over purity of race. Stalinists obsessed over purity of political beliefs. Jihadists obsess over purity of religious belief. But purity is always there. And purity can twist good into evil, or render a lesser evil into a far greater evil.
What is purity? The dictionary tells us that it is “freedom from adulteration or contamination.” For our purposes, we may use the synonym ‘perfection’ with some utility. The point of purity is to identify impurities and eradicate them. The Nazi will eradicate the racially impure, the Communist will eradicate the impure Capitalists, and so on.
The utility of quests for purity to a tyrant should be obvious. For what is more impure than man? A quest for purity is carte blanche for never ending power over others. Progressivism itself admits this even in the content of its own name. Progress toward what? Purity. Progress toward the perfect society, in which poverty, disease, war, and a thousand other such ills have been eradicated.
Never will you hear the Progressive say “this is good enough, we can stop now.” For them, there is always a new impurity to eradicate. The movement is like the terminator of movie fame:
Kyle Reese: Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
Social Justice is like the terminator in other ways, too. It cloaks itself as one of us. It wears the skin of our institutions in an effort to disguise itself. But always, its mission is to eradicate us. We are the impure. We cannot be permitted to exist.
And when a round of impure are disposed of, new impure are found. Today, it is Rightists. Tomorrow, Centrists. The day after that, Trotskyite Leftists. The terminator never stops. Ever-greater demands of purity are made. Like the Third Reich, the gas chambers never stop. The ash falls from the skies, forever. At least until someone puts a stop to it all at gunpoint.
Purity spirals work so well because fault can always be found with man. Every single human being in the history of our species, save one, has done wrong; has sinned. We all deserve death. That is a fundamental tenet of Christianity. It is also true even if you are the most ardent of atheists. Man is imperfect. And so it will ever be.
Yet, is it the SJW’s responsibility to act as the judge, jury, and executioner? Shall the Nazi do it? Shall the Stalinist? The Jihadist? Not only is there no one among us who could ever make demands of purity upon us, these cretins are the worst of the worst, the most evil among us. And it is they who always lead the charge to purity. The nuts are running the nuthouse.
Rationalizations always exist for why we are bad people. Why we should be punished, why we should give up everything, why we shouldn’t even exist. ALWAYS. Here we are, in America, the most prosperous nation to have ever existed in the history of our species. This is a place where starvation is virtually unknown. Where even the poorest among us possess wonders. And yet our debate constantly shifts toward America as an unjust nation that loves reducing its citizens to poverty, as if we were like Somalia or Haiti. Similar arguments are made for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc…
There are some poor people in America (though they do better here than in most places), thus we are impure. And in the minds of the purity-seekers, this means there is no fundamental difference between us and Haiti. Disagree? You want to push granny off a cliff, you Nazi! Ironic, I think, that the Left names us the Nazis when the modern purity-seekers are almost invariably Leftists.
Purity spirals are how evil manifests itself in its most concentrated human form. It is where humans go collectively insane, where they can rationalize the most hateful and destructive things. When the SJW says that you are a racist for X, he is almost always saying you are impure. They even police their own, thusly. They are always on the lookout for manifestations of impurity even among their own. They are political cannibals, as purists necessarily must be.
Had the Third Reich been permitted to continue, it would have invariably turned its genocidal hatred upon its own, sooner or later. Indeed, we saw signs of this even during its short life. Just as the Soviet Communists ate their own, and the Maoists, and the Jihadists killing other Muslims… this is always how it goes.
The terrifying aspect of it is that before purity-seekers consume themselves in an orgy of hatred and death, they bring us down with them. At least, if they are not stopped first.
That’s what our conflict is all about, underneath it all. Purity, and those who use purity as an excuse for tyranny. Far from being the good guys, they are the most evil among us (though we all have at least some evil in us). Far from being those who will usher in an age of peace, love, and tolerance, they are those who will usher in an age of death, war, hatred, and intolerance.
It is always this way with them. When they call you a Nazi, remember that though they have little or no political connection with them, their underlying drive for purity means that, of all modern political ideologies, they (and perhaps the Jihadists) most closely resemble the behavior patterns of Nazis. For all of them are, like the Nazis and Stalinists before them, seekers of power through purity spirals.
Self-loathing white people are some of the most disturbing people to have ever drawn breath. Drama queens might be the best way to describe them, for they obsess endlessly about things they haven’t done, they elevate petty problems to the world stage and bury major ones behind a veneer of political correctness. A white kid wearing dreadlocks is the end of the world. But recognizing that ISIS lobs gay people off of buildings for amusement is probably racism (even though, paradoxically, Islam is not a race). Sanctimony is their religion, Social Justice their crusade, and endless self-hatred their spiritual diet.
Here’s a window into the insane mind of one of these cretins: White People Have No Culture. And it cries out in the darkness of colossal ignorance for a proper fisking. Let us begin our descent past an event horizon of stupidity, a singularity of dedicated ignorance…
I traveled to Standing Rock in November of 2016 with my friend, hauling over 5000 dollars worth of winter tents, clothing, food, and gear. My full time job allowed me to stay barely a week, and my ego, mixed with a hefty dose of white savior mentality, convinced me that my training as an EMT, and my lifetime of experience with direct action and social justice, would make me useful. Fast forward 5 days, and I was crying in the driver’s seat of my car, while my amazing friend listened quietly as I grieved for something I didn’t know I had ever lost.
First of all, our intrepid SJW makes sure to inform us that she was once possessed of the white savior mentality but, apparently, no longer possesses it. She is reformed, made more pure through the enlightenment of social justice, presumably. And then, after taking a vacation from her job, spends her time crying about it. This is Social Justice compressed into the most simplistic and yet still-accurate analogy I can think of: it is distilled, purified, bad-feels. If you want to have a bad time, if you want to feel like shit and cry after taking a vacation, by all means, have yourself a helping of Social Justice.
Standing Rock is an incredible place. An indigenous led prayer ceremony, populated by resistance movements from every corner of the globe, many of them bound to each other by shared and distinct traditions of dance, song, storytelling, and way of being in the physical world. Like any indigenous and overwhelmingly powerful place, white people had decided to take it. White people, like me, were arriving to SR in droves, some of us even dressed like it was Burning Man, forcing our way to seats right next to the sacred fire, putting our pasty faces too close to elders and demanding that they teach us their culture, clumsily mimicking centuries old dance traditions, jostling for position in the lines for free food, taking up so much space that the medicine tent had to be guarded 24/7, and young Dakota men were placing themselves in front of elders to protect them from the onslaught of questions and poking and consumption an demands for emotional labor and reliving centuries of trauma. By the time we arrived, SR elder organizers had begun holding twice a day orientations, where each of these things was addressed, and indigenous folks were demanding that white people stop colonizing their space. Yes, colonizing their space.
Fun fact: I didn’t colonize their space. Neither, I suspect, did any of my readers. I don’t stay up late at night worrying about the rituals of others, or figuring out ways to justify crashing their party. Social Justice Warriors do this all the time. They’ll push aside the very people they claim to cherish in an effort to seek out media attention, or some such thing. Look, if you want to go to some sacred event, and the practitioners are okay with you doing it, by all means, have a good time. It’s not my barrel of monkeys, mind you, but you do you. But here’s a hint… if you feel like crying in your car and writing articles about how people like you suck after you attend the event, you did not have a good time. So maybe, I dunno… do something else next time you get a week off from work? And here’s a bonus: you won’t be colonizing their space. I mean, I hardly even know what that means – SJW parlance is a strange and foreign language – but you can’t do it if you don’t go, I presume.
“White people have no culture.”
This is partially true. It is also untrue. This statement is a form of denial, and also a source of grief.
White people do have culture. Our culture is that of colonization. Of genocide. Of taking. Of envy and of fear. The majority of white people can name no more than two generations back in their families. The majority of white people barely know where their grandparents were from, much less who their ancestors were.
Okay, cupcake, I’m going to stop you right there. I can name generations of my family going back to the 12th century. I know where my family came from, what they were about, and have some idea of the kinds of people they were. My father’s family descends from the British Raleigh family (yes, that Raleigh family), and has been lurking around the Virginia area since the 1600s, living on the old land grants all the way until the time of the Civil War. We’re distantly related to Thomas Jefferson, and the Randolph family as well. We were tied in to many of the First Families of Virginia. My mother’s family traces back to Armenia, where they escaped the genocide and fled to America. I still have my great-grandfather’s naturalization certificate and some of his effects. I know that my great-grandmother came from the Trebizond area, and probably had some Greek in her, too. My great-grandfather, on the other hand, came from a family that lived in Cilician Armenia since Byzantine times. Of course, no Armenians live there anymore – all who stayed were exterminated. There are many other family stories I could share, but this post would get extremely long. In the South, most of us take special pride in our family trees, though. It is, dare I say, a cultural thing.
So speak for yourself. That your family is so dysfunctional you have no connection to your roots doesn’t mean it is that way for all of us, or even most of us.
The majority of white people have no traditions, and the ones we have, are rooted in consumption and the superficial application of organized religion, both of which are steeped in histories of violence. Christmas is about a severed tree dropping dead needles on heaps of plastic crap, grinding the gears of our capitalist economy, a formerly pagan ritual that has been bastardized and twisted into a stressful display of wealth and excess. Easter is about disposable plastic balls full of processed sugar, many of which are left for years to mar the sterilized landscapes and rigidly decorated city parks and backyards. Valentine’s Day was created exclusively by the greeting card industry to make you spend money on disappointing gifts and unhealthy treats for your unsatisfied monogamous partner. Independence Day is a too long period of time where daily explosions and worshipping of war trigger people and animals with PTSD, and create an alarming amount of pollution, maimed limbs, and death. Thanksgiving? Don’t even start.
Let’s analyze a few of these points. Christmas, they say, incorporates elements of pagan beliefs. There is some truth to this. As Christianity swept the late Roman Empire, people who converted often kept some of their preexisting traditions, where those traditions did not conflict with Christian belief. The same happened when Christianity spread to the Germanic peoples and the Slavic peoples. So this wasn’t a case of white people having no traditions, it was a case of white people practicing cultural syncretism, deciding to keep some preexisting traditions when they converted to Christianity.
The author then complains about superficial consumerism invading these holidays. This is true, to a point. There are those people who have forgotten the cultural origins of these things, Easter in particular. But again, the author is assuming it is this way for white people in general, and not merely this way for her. My friend Francis is quite a sincere Catholic, I am sure if you told him that Easter was about sugar and plastic eggs, he would be quite confused by the idea.
I’m not even going to go into Independence Day as a worshiping of war, maimed limbs, and death. The idea that fireworks ought to be banned has been discussed to death elsewhere. The author definitely exaggerates her points for dramatic effect, though.
The closest thing white people have to culture is our disturbingly fanatical obsession with sports, which we use to justify things like property destruction, vitriolic hatred for people we don’t know, and even accidental deaths. These are the same things that we justify with our constant military assault on developing and impoverished communities, at home and abroad.
Lolwut? What does enjoying sports have to do with property destruction, or vitriolic hatred for people we don’t know? The author then tries to make this a military issue? She’s delusional, or on some very interesting drugs.
Which brings me to my main point: The culture of white people is the culture of death. It is a culture of endless war, desensitization to human suffering, and the upholding of a brutal individualism fueled by greed. It is a deep, dark hole of grief and of loss. We don’t even know what we lost. We don’t know our ancestors. We don’t have stories of creation and hope and family; only stories of destruction and genocide. Our coming of age ceremony is a school shooting. Our song is a ballad about rockets and explosions. Our elders die alone surrounded by their stories of family members who no longer visit them. Our cities were built by the blood of slaves, on top of the graves of native people.
For a moment, I almost felt sorry for the author. While I generally feel quite secure in the knowledge of where I come from, who I am, and the history and culture of my ancestors, she clearly does not feel this. I could discuss this topic for hours. Today’s modern urbanite “cosmopolitans” have only the most superficial understanding of culture and history. The author knows that her knowledge of “indigenous” culture and history is woefully lacking, but she doesn’t stop to consider the possibility that her understanding of European cultures and history is similarly lacking. Imagine standing beneath the Hagia Sophia and saying “white people have no culture.” Imagine walking into the Pantheon in Rome and suggesting that white people have no understanding of their history.
Some years ago, I took a trip to Europe with my wife. We visited some friends in Cologne, and then explored much of the surrounding area, including Aachen, where I took a tour of the Palatine Chapel – Charlemagne’s old church, partially decorated in Byzantine style. There is a throne there with stones sourced from Jerusalem, it is said, and upon which many of the Holy Roman Emperors sat. That evening, we headed back to Cologne and found ourselves stopping for a quick bite to eat. By the bathrooms in this restaurant there was some ancient Roman ruin, a stone which had once marked the center of their coliseum, upon which the cleaning lady had set all of her cleaning supplies. This was strange to American sensibilities. People walked by it without noticing, the cleaning lady couldn’t have cared less that it existed. But over there, many things are thousands of years old.
I’ve often noted that the “cosmopolitans” who claim to love all cultures are really more like cultural tourists. And in a moment of guilt, they look in the mirror and realize how much they don’t understand – but the admission is brief and fleeting. It is an SJW crying in her car, blaming everyone who looks like her – perhaps thinking that she can push off some of the weight of her guilty feelings by diffusing it across “white people” instead of just herself.
And remember, too, that “white people” implies unity where none exists. There is no unified “white people” culture, to which all adhere. Spaniards practice something different than English, who are different than Icelanders, and so on. If the author is looking for a white monoculture, she is bound to be disappointed. That is a fool’s quest to begin with.
“Violence pervades this culture. Americans not only engage in violence, they are entertained by it. Killing takes place in America more often than the Sun rises, currently at an average of 87 times each day. Going to war in Afghanistan is less dangerous than living in Chicago.
At this point, I feel I should point out that Chicago is run by Leftist cosmopolitans. Her people, not mine. If there is a culture encouraging violence of this sort, it comes from the Left.
Romans went to the Coliseum to watch people being killed. In major cities, Americans just look out their windows. Baseball, once America’s national game, a benign, soporific sport, has been replaced by football which is so violent it destroys the brains of those who play it. Violent films, euphemized as action flicks, dominate our motion picture theatres and television sets. Our children play killing video games.”
Baseball hasn’t been replaced. What kind of crack is this guy smoking? It is possible for someone to like baseball and football. Or, in my case, to have little affection for either sport (I prefer racing and hockey, personally – yes, the latter is heresy for a Southerner, but the former is well-respected enough). Also, while football does indeed lead to many injuries, the players are generously paid for the risks they take. How many people would take that money in exchange for a risk of personal injury? Violent movies are usually produced by Leftist Hollywood, and video games aren’t real. The idea that there is a connection between real-life violence and video games has been dunked more times than I can count.
We do not get to achieve enlightenment; we lost that privilege centuries ago. We buried it in graves on land upon which we were strangers. This loss is real, palpable, and painful. There is a profound level of fear inherent in white people and the way we desperately grasp that which is not ours. This hole cannot be filled by our self delusion, and it represents generations of isolation and grief. It is our own generational trauma that we carry with us and pass on to our children. It hurts, and we do not know how to assuage that pain.
There wouldn’t be a national trauma if these people would shut up. Also, if she feels he is living on stolen land, then she should leave. I’d be happy to pay for a ticket to somewhere else – anywhere else, really – provided it was one way.
So we take. We take the traditions, costumes, dances, songs, and agency of marginalized groups after we have decimated their populations and destroyed their homes, and we polish these items so the suffering cannot be seen. We take their words out of context, and we use them to make money and to fake solidarity. We take their circles and stories and we wash them with our whiteness, and we struggle to fit them into our bloody box. We take their lands, their trails, their mountains, their rocks, and we climb and walk on them, snatching frenzied glimpses of what we want to call connection, enlightenment, transcendence, and wondering why they slip through our grasp. So instead, we get high on endorphins and call that “good enough.”
The rocks, the mountains, the trails… these things have exchanged hands since men first set foot… anywhere, really. My grandfather used to speak of Mt. Ararat. This is sort of like the national symbol of Armenia. And it lies just over the border in Turkey. The Greeks lament the loss of Constantinople to this very day. The world is full of places that once belonged to one people, and now belong to another. Put another way, we all live on conquered land. So why is America uniquely singled out for this offense? Even among the indigenous peoples, this was true. Before the white man came, they fought wars, conquered, and took lands from one another. We can say this is wrong, that it’s a part of human nature that pretty much sucks ass. It doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t rewrite the firmware in the human brain that leads to this sort of thing. Above all, why is America singled out for this – and the actions of all others whitewashed away (pardon the pun)?
I imagine most SJWs would lament the Spanish Reconquista. Christians taking land from Muslims, they’d say, and damn those barbaric and evil Christians for doing that to the poor enlightened Muslims. Ah, but the Muslims took the land from the Christians seven centuries prior. So who has rights to it, in the social justice world? In their world, the rights are owned by whomever can best deploy Weaponized Empathy. Bombs, guns, swords, and bows… these have been replaced with weaponized guilt, at least for the time being. I imagine sooner or later, the guns and swords will make their appearances. SJWs are not ending conquest, colonization, and such things. They are encouraging more of it. They feel miserable, and seek out someone to put them out of their misery.
And I guess that wouldn’t bother me… if it wasn’t for the fact that we were living with them as neighbors.
We want to learn something about ourselves that we lost, and so we keep taking the tokens and lives of other communities. But that one doesn’t fit, so, you know…on to the next.
The cycle needs to stop. It is the responsibility of white people to face our history and to fight the culture we have created. Stop hiding behind the stories and tokens of other people, and be accountable for the brutal ways we have consolidated our power and privilege. Stop pretending like you can hike or climb or meditate your way out of this power dynamic. You are not enlightened. Let’s stop with the excuses. You are powerful, and it is time to own that and to use it to fight back against the culture of death and violence that has left us spiritually and morally bankrupt. Call out the bullshit when you see it, in yourself and in others. Stop colonizing the lives and land and stories of others. Stop perpetuating the culture of death, and instead fight for the living.
“You are powerful…” Yeah, no. Power these days is possessed by whomever shouts “I’m offended” the loudest. That may be changing, slowly, but the effort to climb that mountain is extraordinary. If you’re a straight white Christian male (or even a couple of those things) you are the devil. You must walk on eggshells every minute of every day. You never know where the next accusation of racism, sexism, Nazism, or some other such thing will come from. You don’t know if the accusation will cost you your job, your friends, your family. You can’t jump, you can’t dance, you’re square, you’re probably a loser (look at every TV commercial with a white man in it), and, like this SJW says, you are violent, evil, and have no culture. Everything bad in the world is your fault. Every political conversation is about how you suck. And if you do get past all this and achieve something anyway, you’re told that you had life on the easiest setting, and so should get no credit for any of it. Indeed, you should feel bad and give it all up for a ‘person of color.’
In the face of all this, I can kind of understand why some folks crack and wind up crying in the car, conflicted and self-loathing. Why they pen turds like this one. They hear this shit every day, and through sheer repetition, come to believe in it. They don’t have the anchor of family and history to keep them from being blown about, ideologically. The author herself admits this. Her mistake is believing that we are all like her, or that even most of us are. She conflates her personal shortcomings with societal shortcomings, her own superficial understanding of history with our understanding of the same. She believes that because she, personally, has no culture that none of us do.
To describe my own culture would take too much of my time. But if some SJW stumbles upon this post and wants to know where to begin, I recommend starting here:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…
Here’s a bit of heresy: ban nothing. Did that raise the hair on your back? Did it strike a chord? Did you find yourself thinking “but Thales, that can’t possibly work!”
One of the more bizarre news items of the day relates to a continuing fetish of American municipal governments for banning plastic straws. Now, a liberal acquaintance of mine assured me that he was not inconvenienced by the use of biodegradable paper and wax straws, and plastic straws do have various environmental consequences. In this, my liberal acquaintance is entirely correct. Yet I still disagree vociferously with these straw bans.
To illustrate why, let us go back to the days of Prohibition. Take a gander at these propaganda posters from the period:
Alcohol had then, and still possesses, a number of terrible consequences for overuse. We have drunk drivers, alcoholics, violent drunks, and to say nothing of the things I see DJing the clubs. Yet Prohibition failed and was repealed. Why?
The usual argument is that banning doesn’t work because people will get what they want regardless. There will be speakeasies and bootleggers, organized crime and street thugs. That’s partially correct. But let’s be frank. None of those things will be a problem for banning plastic straws. Certainly, I don’t see organized crime selling crates of plastic straws out of the backs of sketchy minivans. So what’s the real issue?
Freedom of choice.
If the harm of alcohol was eventually outweighed by freedom of choice, then how can we justify banning plastic straws? Many of the same Leftists arguing for banning straws are, in turn, proponents of the legalization of marijuana. Any substance, device, or creation of mankind will have costs, that is to say negative effects. This applies to every single thing man creates. Automobiles have negative effects. Cubicles have negative effects. Medicines have side effects, or can lead to addictions. Those ugly, tacky garden gnomes have negative effects (the sight of them used to drive my dog into a rage for reasons that are clear only to him).
The trick of the Left is to focus on those negative things in an arbitrary fashion. For the things they like, they speak only of the positives. Weed will save lives, reduce pain, relax people. For things they dislike, they speak only of the negatives. Straws will hurt turtles, and won’t degrade for decades. Animals might ingest them. Ban straws. Legalize weed. Ban guns. Legalize gay marriage. There is no principle here, no overriding guidance they are following, only arbitrary emotions. These are the whims of a mob. If 50% + 1 don’t like something that you like, ban it!
What a lot of people don’t realize is that the mob is not necessarily consistent. 50% + 1 may be found to ban anything and everything, because a person may like ban A, but be against ban B.
Most Leftists are essentially reacting emotionally, not rationally. However, some attempt to rationalize it by amount of harm. They attempt to weigh all of the consequences and all of the benefits, and say that if the balance is more toward harm than good, we should ban it. This presumes that all the consequences and benefits are known (or a sufficient number of them to make a reliable decision). This tries to masquerade as principle.
A common example is when they argue that guns don’t have sufficient benefit to outweigh the harm, but automobiles do. So even though automobiles kill more than guns, we should ban the guns, but keep the automobiles (some other Leftists want to ban both, there’s ban A and ban B for you, again). However, what is accepted as a benefit is not consistent between proponents and opponents of the bans. For instance, a Rightist is likely to include incidents where a thug was discouraged from attack merely by the brandishing of a firearm (such events are common), whereas the Leftist generally only wants to include incidents of a bad guy with a gun, stopped by a good guy with a gun, where the good guy is not employed by the government (far less common).
Furthermore, the Leftist generally tries to include suicides, even though many other alternate (and just as easy) suicide methods exist. Japan has a higher suicide rate than the US, despite a robust gun ban. The Left artificially reduces the perceived benefit, and magnifies the perceived harm by some subtle manipulation with regards to which statistics are accepted, and which are dismissed.
This leads us right back to the lack of principle. What the Left doesn’t like must be banned. They are quite casual with bans, too. They’ll ban guns and plastic straws, both. I heard a tale once of a town in Texas which banned inflatable gorillas. While I’m sure there is an amusing story behind the ban, it illustrates that nothing is beyond the reach of the ban hammer.
This morning, a local community page was full of demands to ban fireworks on behalf of pets, veterans with PTSD, and idiots who hurt themselves doing dumb things with fireworks. The chief proponent of the ban rattled off statistics not unlike what you see in the Prohibition propaganda. 12,000 people annually are hurt by fireworks, she said, and we can’t even count the harm to pets and veterans. They should be replaced with laser light shows, she demanded.
Once you get into debating the pros and cons of a ban, you have already implicitly conceded that bans are justified given a certain harm/benefit ratio. At that point, you are now vulnerable to the manipulation and spin of said data, which is commonplace. It’s an endless rabbit hole, and debates like that spiral into infinity. We’re all caught over the event horizon of a singularity of stupid.
So I’ll repeat the heresy: ban nothing.
An opponent of this statement may attempt to bring extreme circumstances to bear. “Oh, you mean you wouldn’t ban crime? Murder? Theft? Rape?” Each of those things is a violation on the individual’s rights to life, liberty, and property. Those are the consistent principles. So what about extreme drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc… Well, never mind the notion that banning these things has objectively failed anyway, regardless of how much I might loathe them. In my heart, would I like to ban them? Sure. Do I think it’s practical to do so? No. Every attempt has failed utterly. And that circles right back to the original point. Just because I loathe something doesn’t mean it should banned. This is a truth the Left has utterly failed to grasp. To them, dislike is coextensive with “get rid of it, get it out of my sight.” It’s the mantra of tyrants.
In any event, the principle of banning nothing need not necessarily be adhered to 100%. It’s probably impractical, just as my support for limited government does not necessarily imply that I think no government whatsoever can work practically (however much I’d like that). We might say we want to get as close to that principle as is possible and practical. Certainly we do not violate the principle for something as trivial as drinking straws. If you’re going to disobey the rule, you better have a damned clear, concise, and dare I say obvious reason for doing it. And even then, be exceedingly cautious.
Ah, but am I being arbitrary, even with that small concession? Maybe. I’d at least admit that I am, instead of trying to spin the argument otherwise. However, even those things I find incredibly distasteful, I would still not ban. The principle overrules my desires in all but the most extreme of cases – and possibly not even then, if the concerns of practicality can be addressed.
Don’t get caught in circular arguments about the harm and benefits of each thing the Left desires to ban. Instead, respond to the ban demand with some heresy. Tell them you want to ban nothing, and watch their heads explode with anger. For you have just dismissed the core of their entire worldview: that their subjective like or dislike of a thing should be taken seriously and given real weight.