What is Treason?

Francis, over at Libery’s Torch, touches upon a very important topic in America, that frequently gets overlooked: treason. I will allow him to explain for us:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. [Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3]

Isabel Paterson noted the treason clause, in combination with the Constitution’s prohibition of bills of attainder and “corruption of blood,” as supremely important protections for the lives and property rights of Americans. Understanding this requires knowledge of how charges of treason were used by monarchies to destroy those who opposed the king. For all practical purposes, if the king charged you with treason, you were automatically guilty – and no one dared object, for reasons that should be obvious. “Corruption of blood,” another monarchical practice banned by the Constitution, extended the penalty from the accused to his family: it “justified” the attainting of the accused’s relatives, seizure of all family property, and in some cases the enslavement of all family members.

But these provisions, though critical to attaining a grasp of the mindset of the Founding Fathers, are of less interesttoday than the three words “War,” “Aid,” and “Comfort.”

Yes, Gentle Reader, those specific words are of vital importance to us today: the twentieth of June in the year of Our Lord 2016. There are several reasons, but the one I have in mind at the moment is Islam.

Now the interesting thing here is that Francis immediately brings up Islam. And he is not wrong to do so. Those who give Aid and Comfort to our Islamic terror enemies are among us. They are in our government. They are among the civilian population, also. Members of Omar’s family had reason to believe he was planning an attack, and did nothing. Are they traitors, then? A Court of Law should decide this, but certainly they should be charged. It appears his wife will be charged with accessory to murder, but this is too small a thing.

Our political leaders lie about terror attacks, most notably Hillary lying about Benghazi. Is this treasonous, via Aid and Comfort to the enemy? Again, quite possibly. She should have been charged.

But it goes beyond Islam. While Francis does an excellent job of laying out the case for those who support Islamic terror, what of those La Raza supporting Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) who have been spotted at Trump rallies assaulting American citizens, burning the American flag, and then holding up signs saying “Make America Mexico Again”? They are, in effect, demanding that America cede the Southwestern states to Mexico.

We are not at war with Mexico, yet Mexico sends us millions of people through illegal channels. In normal times, this would be called an invasion. It would be grounds for war. If millions of Americans illegally crossed into Mexico, certainly the international community would condemn it as a warlike act. Are those within the government that support this via aid and succor treasonous? I don’t know the jurisprudence to make such a decision, naturally, but I do suggest that this should be investigated. If they are illegal immigrants, the decision is simple: deport them. They are active agents of chaos and destruction and have no right to be here. If they are legal immigrant citizens, then the charge of treason should be investigated. They have violated their oaths.

Are these traitors? If they are illegal, then no, they have taken no oaths -- but they must be deported. If they have taken an oath, then consider the possibility that they have violated their oath.

Are these traitors? If they are illegal, then no, they have taken no oaths — but they must be deported. If they have taken an oath, then consider the possibility that they have violated their oath.

Now, naturally, I have no issue with those legal immigrant citizens who are good American citizens, and do not demand that America be given over to Mexico, or make claims of racial superiority over Americans (La Raza does this). They are most welcome. And for their part, I have seen several Americans of Mexican ethnicity fighting back against these people. But those among them who make demands like these have violated the oaths taken to the United States. Is it treasonous, or do we account it merely as a voluntary renunciation of citizenship via the violation of their stated oath? I don’t know. But again, the matter must seriously be considered. Otherwise the oaths taken to become a citizen of the United States of America are effectively worthless.

These are serious matters. Like Francis, I do not invoke the charge of treason lightly. But what else can the definition have, if not to deliver America and her citizens unto her enemies?

What is Privilege Really?

There is not much I can add to this magnificent post over at Sarah’s place. I’ve spoken with the author of it, Sanford Begley, on occasion. And so, for me, there is an extra layer of authenticity to this:

I am privileged. This is true, but not in the way the left thinks. The other day I disagreed on social media with a woman about another program to take from workers and give to parasites. She said that she had been middle class and was now poor and I couldn’t understand because I am privileged. I thought about it and replied that she was right. That answer is the seed of this post. Many of you are even more privileged than I, but I’m going to tell about my privilege now.


I was born in Appalachia in the middle of the twentieth century. Well it was the middle of the twentieth everywhere else, in most of Appalachia it was still somewhere between the nineteenth century and the mid twentieth. Many places were still using “coal oil” lanterns and indoor plumbing was rare. I was an adult before living in a house that had an indoor toilet. Central heat was a coal fired stove in the middle of the living room and a wood stove in the kitchen. Being the first one up in zero weather was an adventure. Could you start a fire before the cold started to hurt?


Many people I knew, much of my family in fact, lived in what were known as tar-paper shacks. This was a wood frame covered with the tar paper used by roofers for waterproofing. I believe I was privileged enough that I never lived in one myself. I’m not sure, we followed the jobs and work was hard to come by then.

There is an assumption that if you’re a white middle class man, you have suffered no pain. That life was easier for you, somehow, or that people conspired to pave your way to wealth and power. The point, of course, is to ensure that the white man is last in line for jobs, and first in line for paying the bill.

I remember some SJW once pointing out to me that I would never understand what it was like to suffer domestic abuse. Except that, growing up, my stepmother (whom my father mercifully divorced eventually) was pretty much every evil stepmother stereotype rolled into one. And she was very physically abusive. So no, I told the SJW. I don’t understand what it is like to be a grown adult who is abused by his or her spouse… but I know what it’s like to be a child beaten and abused by an adult. Does that count?

But unlike SJWs who worship victim status, I look back on my experience with shame. I remember my stepmother punching me in the face when I was 11 or 12, I think, and the fact is, she was a short and smallish woman. I easily had the strength, even then, to stand up to her and hit her back hard enough that she would never hurt me again. But I didn’t, and to this day I am ashamed of this failure. To me, it was a lesson in defending yourself, to never stand idle when you should fight back.

In that I am, like Sanford Begley, privileged.

The point of all this is that SJWs only see a middle class white man who is more successful, perhaps, than they are. Someone who is happier and more content with life. And the envy, the jealousy, grows within them. They will say and do anything to drag you down, and to elevate themselves over you. They think that their experiences in life must be the worst, the greatest tragedy, and that you, by virtue of your skin color and genitals, could not have suffered equal or greater hardship in life.

But SJWs, you need to understand something. I learned from the shame of my inaction all those years ago. The next time someone tries to punch me in the face (physically or metaphorically), it will not go so easily for them.

You Are Not Your Identity Politics

You will have to excuse me, as this is a sort of late night post of a thought I could not excise from brain. Identity politics has become a sort of catch-all for victimhood status, the sacred cow of SJWs around the world. Whatever your identities are, they comprise the whole of your person. Blacks must always be victims of policemen. Women must always be oppressed by the patriarchy. Hispanics are always victims of whites. Whites are always racist.

Recently, an individual ranted at length on Facebook about how food is racist, classist, etc. and ad nauseam. Food, you see, is cultural appropriation. If you are Chinese, then it is safe for you to eat Chinese food. But beware, whitey, if you dare to order takeout lo mein. All of these are in-born attributes, according to the SJW. Another SJW became cross with a white guy who dared to wear dreadlocks. Everything from your diet, to your hairstyle, to your political views, to how society treats you, is pre-ordained by your race, religion, nationality, disabilities (or lack thereof), etc…

It’s so limiting. I couldn’t imagine living that way. Ethnically, I’m part English and part Armenian. Amusingly enough, I loathe most of the food from both countries. I’m 100% American, and very Southern, mostly because my father’s family has been lurking around Virginia since the first boat to Jamestown showed up (that’d be the English side, by the way – so far as I know, no Armenians were on that boat). But my years in California destroyed any sense of Southern propriety I had — I’m almost as vulgar and impolite as Donald Trump himself. Also, I’m Christian, and still in search of a church to call my spiritual home.

But these things are facets of me. They are pieces of a larger whole. Details, as it were. They aren’t unimportant, mind you, but a person is more than the sum of various identity groups. Ironically, SJWs deny this, despite all of their rhetoric about how important feelings are, and how terrible it is to be stereotyped. In the end, group membership is what matters most to them. A man may not have an opinion on feminism that is outside the bounds allowed to him. To do otherwise is “mansplaining.” Rinse and repeat for racism, homophobia, islamophobia, etc. and so on.

I do, say, and think as seems appropriate to me.

Extend this out to yourself, dear reader. I don’t know most of you personally. You might be white or black, Christian or Atheist, and so on and so forth. But these attributes are matters of the flesh. The soul is greater than that, or at least it has the potential to be. I’m no “diversity” advocate, mind you, but I genuinely wish for the peoples of the world to live in peace as best they are able.

You can’t take individual responsibility if you don’t think of yourself as an individual in the first place, and that’s what is so sinister about the actions of SJWs and other radical Leftists. All that is bad is someone else’s fault, they tell you, and it feels good and freeing for a time. But they seldom admit the corollary: freeing yourself of responsibility is itself a form of slavery.

When TrigglyPuff’s lecture material on “fat liberation” hit me, my first instinct was to say “stop liberating donuts and you’ll be fine.” But that implies that you are an individual who can change your own circumstances, that you have freedom to change your own behavior, your own identity. You didn’t have to be a fat woman. In her worldview, fatness was a fixed thing. She felt like she could not change it, she was wrapped up in her identity as a fat person. If she was no longer fat, she likely figured, she would no longer be her.


They act like “liberation” isn’t possible by diet and exercise. It’s all about calories burned versus calories eaten. Change the balance enough and you WILL lose weight. It isn’t always easy for folks, but it is a simple formula.

Race is not so easily changed as fatness. But even there, the individual has control over many things. If blacks have a stereotype for increased likelihood for criminal behavior, you don’t have make that an identity. Don’t be a criminal, and none of that will apply to you. Rather than rant and rave that a stereotype exists, just go on about your life and prove them wrong about you.

Imagine for a moment that Black Lives Matter mourned the death of black soldiers and black policemen instead of blacks with long criminal records. How much more support and sympathy would they receive for that? I would be there with them, in fact, if this was their purpose. But this goes against identity politics. The black Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is spurned, the black economist Thomas Sowell is hated. Why? Because they don’t conform to the group identity. Great men are shunned. Losers are elevated in their place.

I remember a video where a black woman was angry at her fellow black college students because they constantly accused her of “talking white” since she refused to go around spouting off ebonics, and acted like the educated woman she wanted to be. Her detractors weren’t whites. They were other blacks who were angry at her for spurning her group identity! It was a very sad thing to see. To SJWs you are no more than your identities. You can never leave the reservation they have assigned for you.

SJWs have a saying: “stay in your own lane.” It encompasses this line of thinking perfectly.

I’m not saying all of these things are irrelevant. We know that genders, ethnicities, religion, and a host of other factors have real, measurable impacts in life, at least at a general level. We know, for example, that blacks are more likely to be pro basketball players than Chinese folks, simply because blacks are taller. But don’t let SJWs pigeonhole you into a box and force you to stay there. You’re more than that. You are a thinking human being, with a soul of your own. Your various group identities are only pieces of a greater whole. Don’t stay in your lane. Do better.

SJWs Want to Train Whites Like Monkeys – Totally Not Racist

I’ve been overdue for a good fisking of SJW racism bullshit, so here we are. The usual language warnings apply. If I offend you, now’s probably a good time to leave. Yada yada, don’t sue me because I hurt your feelings, etc… Now look at the title of this one and tell me the author isn’t a lunatic racist:

The Scientific Way to Train White People to Stop Being Racist

What, are we a bunch of monkeys or something? Are you going to ring Pavlov’s Bell and cure us of all of our crimethink with some pumpkin spice lattes or some other bit of SWPL swag? The more these people try to deny being racist (they even try to alter the definition of racism so it’s permissible to hate certain ethnicities), the more they prove just how hateful and bigoted they really are. The title isn’t phrased “How to defeat white supremacists” or “How to cure white racists of their delusions,” both of which would restrict the condemnation to the guilty. No. It is how to train white people (all of them) to not be racist. It presumes that you are guilty no matter what.

Are you a Romanian guy, fresh off the boat? Too bad, racist, you need to attend your mandatory reeducation training. Of course, your parents probably went through the same under Communism, but hey, nothing like a family refresher, right racist scum?

But as laughable as the title is, the article itself is worse. Let’s fisk away, shall we?

No one wants to be called fragile. And if you’re white, what you feel reading the title of this article may be indicative of the term. “White fragility” refers to white people’s low emotional tolerance for discussing topics of race and racism.

Oh yes, this “white so fragile” nonsense again. You know what’s damned funny about all this? We aren’t the ones with low emotional tolerance for discussing topics of race. SJWs are! Everytime a white man dares to leave his ideological reservation for even a second, he is rabidly denounced, pounced upon by legions of Social Justice Warriors intent on outdoing one another in virtue signalling. I’m not fragile, you are.

The term was coined by Dr. Robin DiAngelo in a 2011 article discussing her experience with white people in anti-racism trainings. She defines it as “a state when even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves.”

The term was coined by an idiot shit-for-brains with the IQ of a bag of hammers. If you call somebody a racist, and are then surprised when that person *GASP* defends themselves from the charge, you have no business calling yourself a doctor of anything. Take your PhD and wipe your ass with it after a bout with leftover Taco Bell, because it’s clearly not worth anything.

We’ve taught similar anti-oppression trainings at tech companies, where we worked as in-house psychotherapists and emotional intelligence educators, and we’ve struggled with similar challenges.

Psychotherapists at tech companies?!? The sheer level of idiocy here is absolutely staggering to contemplate. Do you know what you should do if you work at a tech company? No, not psychotherapy. No, not emotional intelligence education. Technology! Yeah, fancy that.

In our experience, when introducing the concept of race and oppression, the first defense is usually a diversion led by the students to the topic of the oppression of red-headed people, the overweight, the disabled, or their own immigrant heritages. We aim to explain to the group how although these experiences, while indeed oppressive, are not comparable to the centuries of enslavement, race-based legislation, systematic incarceration, and unequal wealth distribution that is racism in the United States. The other class favorite is the derailment to a discussion about “reverse racism,” where we often defer to comedian Aamer Rahmen’s three minute video to resolve. What begins as a workshop often ends up feeling much more like a battle. Facilitators before us have gone so far as to outline specific participation guidelines for these workshops such as ”speak from your own experience” (i.e. no playing devil’s advocate or using hypotheticals) to nip some of the other common defense mechanisms in the bud and to promote more productive conversations.

Yeah, the author is right. There’s no “reverse racism.” It’s just regular, plain old racism. If whites are a race, and you hate them for being white, congratulations, you’re a racist!

It’s funny how the author here discusses the progressive stack here. If you’re Irish, too bad, your oppression doesn’t count. Disabled? Fat? Doesn’t matter. There are those who are more oppressed, and you have to shut your piehole and submit to them.

You attack someone. They defend themselves from your charge. And then you’re exasperated when it becomes a “battle.” I mean, when Germany invaded Poland, damn those Poles for defending themselves, right? Why would they do that, I wonder?

What makes race so hard for white people to talk about? For many, topics of race and racism trigger intense emotional reactions for a few reasons:

Don’t confuse “trigger intense emotional reactions” with “shocked at the level of stupidity you are demonstrating.” Not the same thing, trust me. Anyway, you’re the ones who need counseling after seeing a pro-Trump slogan chalked onto a park bench, so your accusations of triggering constitute textbook projection. Since you’re a psychotherapist or something, you should know that, right?

They’re not used to it: As the longtime racial majority in the US, white people experience little, if any, race-based stress. When it is experienced, it’s usually only temporary, superficial, and/or by choice. There’s a running joke that you can’t call a white man anything that particularly insults him at the identity level except for racist or sexist—that joke is about white fragility. Louis C.K. expands upon this in one of his routines, stating that the worst thing you can call a white man is “cracker,” but even that harkens back to “a time of owning land and people”—a power position and, therefore, not particularly hurtful. Because white people haven’t been fundamentally exposed to race-based stress, they have high expectations for racial comfort. It’s not only that whites aren’t accustomed to race-based discomfort—it’s a novel type of stress that they have pretty much no practice coping with. Words like “low-income,” “urban,” and “under-resourced” are comfortable because they’re terms used by the media to describe “other” people (i.e. non-whites). On the flip side, words like “white,” “advantaged,” and “privileged,” ignite in us an emotional reaction because suddenly the finger is pointed at us—we are suddenly the problem—and we are overwhelmed by feelings of guilt, shame, and blame. When that happens, all emotional hell breaks loose because we just don’t have the tolerance to deal with it, and, depending on your personality, tend to either erupt or shut-down.

Let’s see, we’re called white trash, rednecks, crackers, wonderbread, “the man”, etc… Also, specific white nationalities have others. We have polack (are these idiots forgetting the incredible variety of polack jokes available?), paddy, mick, guido, greaseball, wop, kraut… Don’t forget a personal favorite: the dutch oven (why is it dutch I wonder?). No, various white peoples have plenty of ethnic slurs aside from “cracker.” And I don’t see how paddy, polack, or greaseball refers to a position of power, numbnuts.

And it you want to talk about an equivalent for low income, don’t forget trailer trash (that’s a stand-in for whites).

Of course, we don’t lose our shit every time someone spouts off an ethnic slur, either. So there’s that.

They don’t see it: Often times, talking about race with white people is like talking about water with a fish. Dr. Derald W. Sue (2004) conducted a series of interviews in San Francisco, with some great quotes from white people answering the prompt, “What does it means to be white?” Their answers can be summed up as several variations of: “I don’t know, normal?” Whites don’t even notice their whiteness—they don’t tend to think of themselves as having race. It’s awkward, because we all have a race and white is one of them. It’s even more awkward when white people say things about envying culture and ethnicity, because they don’t see their own culture and ethnicity as anything other than the baseline.

Whites don’t notice their whiteness? What kind of dumbassery is this? I’m pretty damn sure an Irishman knows he’s white when he burns to a crisp in the Florida sun. Anyway, your whole argument is that whites need to be cured of racism, essentially claiming that they are closet supremacists convinced (albeit unconsciously) of their own racial superiority or something, and then you get angry when whites don’t show a particularly strong attachment to white identity?

As far as seeing their own culture as a baseline, you do realize that if you go to, say, a majority Arab country, the Arabs will see their culture as a baseline. And if you go to China, Chinese culture will be a baseline. And so on and so forth. What you’re seeing is that a country that is majority white, God forbid, thinks Western culture is pretty normal.

Moral dilemmas: Discussions of racism challenge whites’ conception that they’re good people, and “privilege” challenges the belief that they are hardworking and deserve everything that they have. When someone says “privilege” we hear “you’re undeserving of your blessings,” (like this guy) and when someone mentions “racism” we all think we’re being called racists! For whites, racial discussions often become (unintentionally) about whether they’re good or bad people—moral or immoral. It’s the same reason a discussion of sexism lead to the popular “not all men” meme. It’s a knee-jerk reaction to derail the conversation, other ourselves, and separate from the system of oppression. When the core of our existence is brought into question, it gets emotional pretty quickly. But these emotional reactions are track-switching—we’re no longer talking about the issue of inequality, we’re talking about ourselves. When our reality as good and moral people feels threatened, up go the defenses and we stop listening. That “track-switching” process right there is actually a continuation and reinforcement of our privilege—whites get to walk away from the implications of race when people of color don’t have that luxury, so let’s get real about that for a second.

No, I’m an asshole. I freely admit that. I’m a sinner, and there are days I wake up and think that when it comes time for Christ to sift the wheat from the chaff, he’ll see me, rub his chin for a moment, and point downward.

I’ve had a lot of blessings in life, not the least of which is being born in a first world country. Although, many “people of color” share that blessing with me. I’m really not sure what they are complaining about. If America is one tenth as shitty as these people are claiming, they should go someplace else. When my father-in-law realized that Cuba was a tyrannical shithole, he left. It’s called voting with your feet.

You wrote an article claiming that whites need to be trained out of racism, and you are shocked that they think they are being accused of racism! Defenses go up when we are accused of something bad, especially if we didn’t do it. I didn’t own any slaves, I didn’t kill anybody, I don’t hate people for their skin color, or any of that. So don’t be surprised if, when you associate me with any of those things, I get pissed off and think you’re full of shit.

But this is the problem with Social Justice. It presumes that if you are not with them, you are against them. When people asked me about gay marriage, they were often shocked with my answer: “I don’t give a shit.” That’s right, I legitimately didn’t care. Not my barrel of monkeys. Now if you ask me about people being forced to participate in gay marriages or get sued, you’ll get a very different answer from me. But the point is, I was neutral. Still, SJW-types would get angry with me for not doing enough for gays. “You’re no ally.” Well, of course not. I said I was neutral, dumbass.

So when an SJW accuses someone of racism, the response they expect is for you to stop, nod your head, agree with them, beg for forgiveness, and promise not to be a poopyhead meanie racist person anymore. Anything else is”track switching.” They say I’m not listening, and they are right. When you spout off bullshit accusations, why would I listen to you anymore?

What can a white person do?

Build tolerance by consciously moving past the good/bad reactionary thinking and learn how to manage feelings of guilt and shame without putting up defenses. Racial conversations are not about you individually, or if you are a good or bad person, racist or not racist. For white people, understanding that racial oppression is not your fault as an individual can be both revolutionary and incredibly helpful. You were born where you were born, your skin is the color that it is, and you grew up how you did, exposed to the media and a society that you had no control over, all of which led you to being exactly who you are today.

“Manage” feelings of guilt and shame, the author tells us. This means, effectively, that you cannot expunge your guilt and shame, you must feel it constantly. You must not defend yourself.

But that’s not the most egregious thing here. Dear readers, analyze this gem again:

You were born where you were born, your skin is the color that it is, and you grew up how you did, exposed to the media and a society that you had no control over, all of which led you to being exactly who you are today.

Remember when I told you that Progressives are Fatalists? Here it is in, pardon the pun, black and white. You were “exposed” to a media and society. You had no control. This is why you are the racist you are today.

Has it ever occurred to these people that free will even exists? That a person can choose to ignore or directly disagree with media and society? You are not your skin color. You are a thinking human being, with a will of your own. You have a choice. God made you in his image, that is to say he gave you the capacity for reason, and the will to choose to use it.

Unfortunately, this SJW clearly didn’t choose to exercise that God-given ability.

We all have biases, regardless of our race, gender, sexuality, class, or religion, many of which are unconscious. The human brain uses split second reactions to make sense of the world using only cues in appearance and behavior, and those reactions are highly socialized by cultural norms and media influences. If you don’t believe us, check out the Harvard implicit associations test (IAT) to measure your own.

Of course humans have biases. I like the color blue, I always have, and I couldn’t give you a reason for it. And, contrary to the assumption that some people have about race, I actually prefer Latin women (and not just because I married one). When it comes to food, I loathe Armenian food (except Khorovats), and don’t think much more highly of English cooking. I prefer Italian and Chinese food.

The question is whether or not these preferences are pathological. You see, an SJW will see that I prefer Latin women and suggest that this means I don’t like black women as much. Therefore, the SJW will say, that is an expression of casual racism.

Except that many black men prefer black women. Are they racist against Latin women, then? SJWs have also claimed that gay men are misogynist because they prefer to have sex with men and not women.

No. There’s no reason to sit here and split hairs over perfectly normal human preferences. In order to expunge them, all humans would have to be identical clones of one another, with identical life experiences. Since this is not possible, absolute equality of preference is also impossible. This is not racism, in the sense that racism requires that such preferences are somehow pathological. Making second-class citizens of somebody, or enslaving somebody, is clearly pathological. Saying “I prefer to date women who look kind of like this” is not. After all, someone else may prefer to date someone of a different ethnicity.

Society and media have contributed to inlaying some biases you didn’t choose to have. Does having biases make you a bad, immoral person? No. Is it good to acknowledge and work to challenge your own biases? Absolutely. Are you “bad” because you didn’t know that you had unconscious biases until now? Not at all.

If we follow this logic to its ultimate conclusion, I would have to challenge why I like the color blue instead of saying, quite simply “I like blue.” And, anyway, if you’re going to ask me to challenge my biases, how about you start with yours? Because if what you say is true, then you also have biases. And then my racism charge against you is equally valid.

That’s right, you evil wonderbread cracker hater. If you’re gay, you need to go date women, you sexist.

In retrospect, you might realize that some of your learned behavior or speech has been pejorative, supporting a system of oppression, or exclusionary, but that’s not a definitive character judgement and recognizing that could be a really valuable moment. We’re building awareness here. Try to let go of the good/bad binary, and open yourself up to discussion and possibility that if you’re American, you almost definitely have racial biases, and if you’re white, add unearned access to privilege to that too. Still with us?

You know, when everything is part of a “system of oppression” it starts to get ridiculous. Like that manspreading deal a few months ago. Also, exclusionary is sometimes good. We recently found out a registered sex offender took up residency in our neighborhood. I intend to exclude him from all the neighborhood get-togethers. Yes, I am exclusionary to pedophiles. Don’t like it? Fuck off.

“Try to let go of the good/bad binary” is quite possibly the dumbest thing ever written. It’s a real doozy. In life, some things are clearly good, and other things clearly bad. Some things are neither, and other things… well it’s hard to tell. But have you noticed how Progressives are looking to make everything this way? There is no male, or female. Get rid of the gender binary (because there couldn’t possibility be utility in differentiating genders when 99.99% of all people are one or the other, and clearly so).

Similarly, there is no good or bad, no racist or not-racist. There is no sexist or not-sexist. There is no choice at all. One choice is the same as another. You are not responsible for anything, because everything is the same. But, clearly those white men are bad, anyway.

What a load.

So, while it’s not your fault that you were born white, and benefit from white privilege, it is your obligation and responsibility to develop awareness of the ways in which you benefit. Whites can and should acknowledge the past and present of their own racial group—the people who look like you (whether you share a hereditary bloodline or not)—and acknowledge how racism preserves today without the need to call into question your own morality. Individualism here is not to erase history or to negate the fact that white is still part of a racially socialized group. You as an individual are not outside of socialization or messages from society about race in culture. You are not outside unequal wealth distribution by race. No one is.

I don’t have an obligation to do jack shit about any of this. In fact, if anything, I have the opposite obligation, to provide my child with all of the advantages I can in life. If I must acknowledge the past and present of people who look sort of like me, then so do you. That means the guy who looks vaguely Arabic must immediately denounce ISIS. Blacks should denounce the slave profiteers who sold them to European slave traders, not to mention that whole Rwandan affair.

The author tries to cover himself with a brief spout about individualism, but the fact remains if you didn’t do the crime, you shouldn’t serve the time. What’s worse, he even suggests that you are even responsible for people who aren’t related to you at all, but who look sort of like you. So the people who liberated Europe in World War II are to be held equally accountable to those who perpetrated the Holocaust because they looked vaguely similar? It’s utter lunacy. You are not responsible for the actions of the group unless you, yourself, willingly participated.

Resist your defenses and keep listening. There’s a role in this system of oppression that you are playing, and the sooner you can tolerate that reality, the sooner you can decrease that participation. Rather than have the fragility and inability to talk about it, why not put on a new attitude and try to accept a few things about you that might not look so hot? In life, there are certain chain reactions at play that lead some people straight to the top and leave others at the bottom. The myth of meritocracy gets in the way of seeing this—we all want to hold onto our story that we’re strong, smart, and deserve everything we have. Maybe a white person graduated from Princeton because she was a good student, but it also might be because they had sufficient funds to attend, access to resources to take all those SAT prep courses, and look like the people Princeton has traditionally accepted. Maybe that white person is really good at her job, but they may also have had some connections (from Princeton, perhaps?) that helped get her in the door, not to mention an anglicized surname that may have pushed their resume to the top of the interview pile. Yes, some people get scholarships, take out loans, have at it the hard way, and rise to the top despite many significant challenges, but these are the outliers. So let’s let go of the myth of meritocracy, and make way for a more fully encompassing (and validating) truth—that if the former sounds like you, you had the golden ticket—a lot of help (financial and otherwise) to get to where you are today.

Meritocracy is a myth, this guy says. He uses Princeton as an example. Does he realize how few white people could afford to go there? Sure, there are some children of rich folks who have the money and connections, but I sure didn’t. No Ivy League schools called me up because I was white and had an Anglo surname. The people he is describing are an exceptionally small super-wealthy elite.

They are privileged because they are super-wealthy elites, not because they are white. I mean, you don’t think the kids of a multi-millionaire basketball player are going to public school, do you? Is Obama going to send his kids to an Ivy League school, or Podunk University?

At least a regular (non-rich) member of a minority can play the Oppression Olympics and maybe sneak in that way. That route isn’t available to regular white folks.

Become an ally. The more white people can increase their tolerance for these conversations, they immediately decrease their entitlement and open themselves to the possibility of being allies. When a white person responds to a conversation about race by taking a breath and listening instead of being defensive and trying to prove how “not racist” they are, they are seen as an ally—and allies are easy to spot! There’s an understanding in the field that people of color may have a greater access to what it means to be white than white people, just as women have a greater understanding of what it means to be male than men—it’s a product of living as a minority. So calm yourself and try to listen, even if only because you look foolish grabbing at straws for an explanation of something much greater than your own small behaviors.

If an SJW wanted to have an honest and open debate, and put his weapons of tarring and feathering away, I would be more than willing to debate him on the subject. The lack of tolerance isn’t on this end. It’s the end of screeching hags screaming racism and needing group therapy because someone wrote “Trump 2016” in chalk.

I mean look at this lunacy. “Women have a greater understanding of what it means to be male than men.” How does this man’s brain manage to avoid self-destructing in a monumental explosion from the sheer level of double-think? I mean, let’s follow this logic through to its ultimate conclusion. If women know men better than men know themselves, it’s likely that the reverse is true. I.e. men know women better than they know themselves.

To say otherwise would be claiming that women understood everybody better than men, which would mean they were female supremacists.

Imagine the outrage from feminists if a man actually claimed that. “Get in the kitchen, and strip naked for me, for I know what it best for you,” says the dickhead. But since he’s a man, he’d have a better understanding of women, right? RIGHT?!


Okay then, shut the fuck up.

Work to transform the system—not perpetuate it. White people perpetuate the problem by being fragile in their inability to even discuss the issue, by the denial of white privilege and the significance of race. We perpetuate it by being angry when someone “accuses” us of benefiting from racism. Transform the system by understanding how whites have and continue to benefit from it. White people have the power to transform it by accepting the psychological burden that we live in a racialized society. It’s heavy, and no one wants to hold it, but maybe, just maybe, we can.

Transform the system into what? Nigeria? Somalia? Saudi Arabia? Look, if you don’t like majority-white countries, I understand. No bullshit, I really do. If there is someplace on this Earth you think is better for you as an individual, then vote with your feet and go there. I support you!

Gavin explains this for us in the first minute of a debate with a radical feminist:

Look, I’m not saying we have things right in this country. If you’ve read my blog, you know that I’m pretty disappointed in things. But I vote with my feet and stay here because, as bad as things are here, I know they would be worse for me someplace else.

You benefit from being here, too, regardless of your race. If for some reason you didn’t, you would vote with your feet, just as I would, to go elsewhere. You have no shackles on your feet. Slavery is gone. You don’t have to stay here if you don’t want to.

Yet you remain, because you are privileged. Of all the privileges we have in this world, living in a First World country may be the biggest. We share that.

So let the elites send their kids to overpriced colleges, and leave me alone about it, for I could never go either. Don’t bother me about things my ancestors may or may not have done, nor hang me for things I have actively opposed, even though they were perpetrated by those who share a skin tone with me. I don’t have anything to give you, anyway. A meager home, an inexpensive car, and some secondhand furniture. Will that change your life, or that of the oppressed peoples of the world?

And that’s the essence here. I want peace between the peoples of the world, I really don’t give a shit about your skin color. But this works both ways. Peace requires two parties, not just one. And if you want ethnic politics to go away, then you have to bury your hatchet, too.

So I ask Progressives this serious question: what is the price of peace in America? What payment, what coin, would be acceptable to you for this all to go away? Because you never seem to have one. It’s always “have a conversation” and “on to the next issue.” Your idea of progress has no endpoint, no destination. Once you win one thing, it is on to the next, ad nauseam. There is no place you want to be. You just keep agitating and subverting, digging deeper under the foundations while everything collapses above you, because all you know how to do is dig.

You are destroyers of culture, not protectors of it. You are wrecking balls in minority communities, not saviors of them. You ruin economies, you do not elevate them to greatness. Everything you touch turns to ash. And then, when the dust has cleared and the smoke has wafted away from the smoldering flames of the world you’ve destroyed, you point to the wreckage and say “why did you make me do this?”

We didn’t make you do any of this. You did it on your own.

Social Justice is a Form of White Supremacy

Today’s readings were very depressing in a bizarre sort of way. The entrenched self-loathing of white Social Justice Warriors would be pitiable if they weren’t such active enemies of freedom and sense. Here’s another bit of Leftist virtue signalling, wherein everyone is supposed to immediately agree with the premise, because it feels good and is blatantly anti-white:

Teacher: A student told me I ‘couldn’t understand because I was a white lady.’ Here’s what I did then.

I grow weary of this fallacy that whites are uniquely or specifically responsible for history’s ills, for all the wrongs that must be righted. Even if I accepted the premise that you carry the sins, not merely of your father, but of all of your ancestors and all those who looked even remotely like you (which I don’t), this would mean that “People of Color” are likewise responsible for great sins against humanity. Mao killed millions, and he was not white. Islamic Arabs are responsible for wiping out entire civilizations. China and Japan have been going at for thousands of years. What about Genghis Khan, or the Aztec habit of human sacrifice?

No, SJWs, whites are not some kind of unique form of human evil. They are just human, with all the fallibility that implies. These twin notions that whites are either the great master race, or the evil oppressive race, are mirror inversions of one another born of some strange sense of self importance.

Here’s an unpleasant truth my readers may or may not be familiar with, but which I know SJWs are unaware of:

How many, once lauded in song, are given over to the forgotten; and how many who sung their praises are clean gone long ago!

-Marcus Aurelius

One of the fascinating things about reading Meditations, is that you soon discover Marcus Aurelius was very aware of how small he truly was in the grand scheme of things. He even understood that, though some fame would linger around his name, no one in the future would know him. He would be words, a name, a series of quotations and histories, but never a living person again. Once he was gone, and all those who knew him were gone, everything was dust.

In simple terms, he did not do things in order to win greater fame, or to elevate his own sense of self-importance. He knew that he was just a man, and would soon go the way of all men in death.

If a Roman Emperor knew that he was not such a big deal, how much smaller are the SJWs? How soon will they be forgotten? How small is their effect on the universe?

SJWs think that white people are a great evil just for being white. Nazis thought that white people were a great good just for being white. But both were equal in their estimation of relative importance. In this way, SJWs can be said to be a form of white supremacist themselves. They believe whites are the superior evil.

Marcus Aurelius would laugh at their own overly-inflated sense of self-importance. He would know them as small men who would soon die, and be forgotten as all men must be, someday.

The teacher in the article above tells us this:

I can’t change the color of my skin or where I come from or what the teacher workforce looks like at this moment, but I can change the way I teach.

Her shame, her sadness comes through in her words. You can tell that there is a longing to change. She doesn’t want to be this superior evil. She probably wishes she could change her skin color, as Shaun King pretended. She, at least, realizes this is impossible. But she now dedicates her life to excising this great evil from the classroom.

Talk about the racial and class stereotypes plaguing our streets, our states, our society. You may agree that black and brown lives matter, but how often do you explore what matters to those lives in your classroom?

Keep in mind that this teacher is supposed to be an English (Language Arts) teacher, ensuring that her students can read, write, and comprehend literature. But her focus has now become educating her students on the evils of whiteness, and the unmitigated good of their own history and ancestry.

Of course, we know that is all bullshit of the highest order. Slavery continues today, in Africa, right now, and the perpetrators of it are not white. Homophobia in America means a pizza shop owned by rednecks might not be amenable to catering a gay wedding. Homophobia in Syria means death for gays. But, since whites are the superior evil, ways must be found to blame them for these things, also.

I’m exhausted of this human tendency to go from one extreme to another, from white man’s burden to whatever this woman is doing. From supremacy to supreme evil. I just want to be a man, who will live his time, and then pass on, as Marcus Aurelius tells us. And that is the one thing both extremes cannot permit.


Arthur Chu could not be a “just a man.” He has to be a great practitioner of Dark Arts, a Social Justice stormtrooper. He must, necessarily, be “great” in some fashion. There is no neutrality, no middle. You are either with him or against him.

All of this is profoundly depressing, because the lack of neutrality, the force-feeding of extremism, means that rationality is the first casualty of the Culture Wars. An English teacher cannot merely teach English, and excuse herself from political matters. She must be political. She must, as Arthur Chu explained, mindkill herself.

Take a side, they say. You are either uniquely evil for being white, or uniquely good for being not-white. All good in your history is to be excised. All evil is to be stressed and emphasized. You are not only responsible for the sins of the father, but his father, and his father before him. You are nothing more than the collective representation of your ancestors, with no Free Will whatsoever.

So this teacher’s speech is nothing more than her declaration of conversion and submission to the dictates of Social Justice. She is admitting her guilt, she is admitting the superior evil of the white race, and asking for mercy and support from her fellow, self-loathing compatriots.

She doesn’t know it, of course (and would be loathe to discover it), but she is also a white supremacist.

Privilege and Fairness: Progressive Delusions

Fairness is an illusion. Absolute equality is categorically impossible. It simply cannot be. Even if each human being was an identical clone of the other, each raised in a controlled environment, the universe would confer fortune upon some and misfortune upon others. Experiences would differ, even if only slightly. Each person would still be unique and thus the Progressive concept of privilege would still exist.

How much more of an illusion is fairness, then, in the world we actually live in?

In this world, women are different than men. Tall people are different than short people. Dark-skinned people are different than light-skinned people. People in one geographic location are different than those in another. It isn’t necessarily that people of one group are better than one another, for that is a blanket statement, and one which has led to all sorts of racial supremacy (none of which has ended well, so far as I know).

But still, differences abound. Is the tall person better than the short person? At some things, naturally. If you are playing basketball, it is an advantage. If, on the other hand, you have to survive in a low calorie environment, being smaller, and having lower calorie requirements, may be better. It is amusing to me that Progressives deny this, for it is the natural consequence of the theory of evolution by natural selection. If human beings evolved, and were not created, then they necessarily must have such variations as a result of environmental adaptation.

Of course, it is a taboo subject. Even talking about it opens one up to cries of racism, sexism and homophobia.

Let us follow the chain of reasoning further, however. If human beings are necessarily different, both as individuals and as demographic groups, then it must follow that equality of outcome is extremely unlikely, even in an environment free of authoritarian restrictions. Short people will gravitate toward the things that they are better suited for, and tall people to other things.

So when we see that there are more male engineers, and more female nurses, what should we make of this? If you’re a Progressive, this is proof of rampant sexism in the first instance, and proper diversity in the second. When there are more individuals of a “victim group” within a particular field, it is good. When there are less, it is bad. In simple terms, the NBA is a properly diverse organization, for it has a large number of tall black men employed in it. Universities are doing better (though not good enough) now that women are more than 60% of the student body.

Irony abounds here, though. In the link above, we see that Progressives are complaining that the male/female imbalance has driven “hook up” culture, which supposedly sees women as sex objects. You just can’t win with them.

Anyway, when Anita Sarkeesian tells us that “everything is racism, everything is sexism, everything is homophobia,” she actually has a point, though not the one she was evidently trying to make. If everything is racism, then it follows that everyone is a racist. After all, how could everything be racist if some people are not racist? Anita failed to think her statement through to its logical conclusion. If everything and everyone is necessarily a racist, she must be one also.

And there’s actually a kernel of truth in that. Everyone has preferences of some sort or another, even if they are loathe to admit it. The question becomes whether or not there is a moral imperative to do anything about it. Progressives certainly think so. One particularly tranzi (stealing your term, Tom) believes that family life is an unfair advantage. If I read to my child, which I do, I am conferring upon him an advantage over those children who do not have a father that reads to them. It becomes “family privilege” and is a sin in the church of Progressivism. He suggests that the state should consider raising the children, to eliminate that particular advantage.

Of course, my Spanish in-laws would consider mass murder before giving the children of our family to the state.

Practical concerns over implementation aside, what would it mean for humanity as a species if family life, something that demonstrably increases a child’s potential, was destroyed? Would humanity gain from this action, or lose? Tranzis pretend to be concerned about the Earth, and the entire human species. Yet they fail, again, to think this through to completion. Does a species gain from restricting its best and brightest?

Never does this particular tranzi ask himself the reverse question. If family life is so good for a child, why are we not spreading this concept to those who don’t have it? Instead of destroying families to “level the playing field” why are we not encouraging more individuals to choose family life over the welfare state? Naturally, not all will choose this, even if pushed to do so. But certainly more would, which would be a net benefit to the species.

Look at the NBA. Progressives have no issue with the favoritism that benefits black basketball players over their white compatriots. So they aren’t even objecting to advantages as a concept. They only object to advantages that do not directly benefit them. Since Progressives are more likely to originate from broken families, single mothers, etc… they seek to spread this misery to the “other” side in order to deprive them of an advantage.

Anita should have said “everything is political.” It would be a more accurate description of Progressive thought.

An analogy is possible. When driving my souped up Mustang, I can occasionally be goaded into racing. I know, it’s stupid and irresponsible, but there it is. Anyway, among gearheads there is an acknowledged way to “roll race” (that is, to race while already moving). You match speeds, making sure both cars are roughly parallel, and one chooses to honk three times. Then you go until one car is clearly ahead. After the first race, you do it again, with the other person getting to honk three times to start.

Most of the older guys, especially muscle car guys, are very consistent about this. But a lot of the younger ricers like to give themselves an advantage. They will come up from behind you at a higher rate of speed, then honk once as they pass you. If you don’t gun it, you are a “pussy” but if you do gun it, you have to make up the speed differential before you can even start to gain on him. If you fail to do so before reaching too high of a speed, then you “lose.” If you complain about this later, you are a “little bitch.” So your car needs to not only be faster, but considerably faster to “beat” them. When that happens, the other driver doesn’t even look at you. They pretend the whole thing didn’t happen at all. It’s a neat little way to avoid the emotional penalty of losing, even after cheating.

Progressives, despite their mouth-noises about fairness and equality, do the same thing in the political arena. They confer as many advantages as possible upon themselves, and demand that the other side deliberately handicap themselves, or they are “privileged racists.” It is not hard to imagine that, if they did succeed in eliminating the family, they would confer advantages upon those children who naturally demonstrated Progressive inclinations, and heap disadvantages on those who did not. Anybody who complained would be a “white supremacist” or something else equally unpleasant.

They don’t want a level playing field. They are merely complaining that the playing field doesn’t favor them exclusively.

So, in effect, Progressives use your empathy and sense of equality against you. Empathy, for them, is a weapon to be employed by those who do not have it, against those who do. Don’t let them do this to you.

Absolute equality is categorically impossible, and any means they devise to “achieve” it is merely a ruse to confer privileges upon themselves, and deny you the same, they very thing they accuse us of. It’s another case of Vox’s saying “SJWs always project.”

%d bloggers like this: