This morning, I was parsing through the usual suspects, and noticed a back link to Right as Usual. The author, Linda Fox, is also a contributor for Liberty’s Torch, and so it piqued my interest. Linda reiterates the dangers of debt:
The Declination has an old post addressing this, from January, 2016. Such a long time ago.
How might we survive, both individually and as a nation? Hunker down, pay off debt, and detach yourself as much as you can from dependency.
Failing that, try to diversify your income sources – yes, that means part-time work, freelance work, and under-the-table work/bartering.
If the powerful can control whether or not you have access to money/income/daily needs, they own you. The peasant, who does NOT control his income, is most at risk.
If you are familiar with the concept of the Overton Window, you understand that mainstream political discourse occurs within certain boundaries. For instance, if a man started espousing Nazi-like sentiments, like throwing Jewish folks into concentration camps, he would be rightly disparaged and ostracized for them.
A relatively wide Overton Window that encompasses a wide variety of views, but omits the utterly evil and detestable, is generally desirable. It is how free speech is kept alive, while evil is still recognized and treated as such. But, like anything, you have to ask yourself: who gets to decide what is evil? Most reasonable people would probably agree that Nazis are evil. But SJWs have a habit of labeling anyone they don’t agree with as a Nazi or a fascist. That Nazism and Fascism are not, strictly speaking, the same things doesn’t stop them from using the ideologies as synonyms. Fascist leader Francisco Franco, for instance, may have been a ruthless dictator, but he did not have the racial ideology or genocidal inclinations of the Nazis. Either way, however, no matter the label they choose, they wish such labeling to immediately expel you from polite discourse.
All of this is very important, because for the moment the Overton Window is still controlled by the mainstream media, and to some extent the policing and censorship policies of social media. Remember that Facebook curators were caught suppressing conservative news stories. Overt and covert manipulation of the Overton Window is one of the Left’s most important tactics.
But what if a man decides to exit the Overton Window and accept social penalty in the name of what he believes is true? What stops him from doing it, if he is prepared to be called names and otherwise taunted for it?
But there is something else that is less commonly understood, and that is the relationship between debt and political censorship. It is at the very center of what the elitists are trying to do. Their SJW patsies are, of course, the designated attack dogs.
Consider my own recent case. Yes, I apologize for harping on it excessively, but I do prefer to use practical examples where possible. So someone doxxes you and starts making threats to your livelihood. They will tell your clients, or employer, or friends, family, etc… that you are a big meanie poopy-head Republican, and you say things they don’t like. Whatever.
Point is, if you are debt free, your expenses will be low. You will have to eat, and pay the usual bills. But these can be managed. You can eat a little less, conserve electricity and water, etc… They are at least partially in your control. But what about a car payment? What about a mortgage? What about the credit card payments and installment loans?
That’s a very different kettle of fish. You might be able to juggle some things around for awhile by being creative. But soon you are facing a wall which cannot be moved. You will lose your home, car, possessions and ruin your credit such that you cannot get these things again for a long time. Your family could be ruined with comparative ease.
How quickly would the average person correct their wrongthink and toe the party line? Or, at the very least, self-moderate their own positions to stay within the increasingly-narrow Overton window of the Left? Indeed, this has consistently been one of the most powerful weapons in the SJW arsenal, because they naturally subvert institutions and HR departments to put their men (or transsexual otherkin) into these positions. So help will not be forthcoming from these avenues. You cannot appeal, because the Court of Public Opinion answers to no higher court. And defending yourself is proof of guilt.
You are labeled as a Nazi, or a fascist, and now you are beyond the pale. Any defense is proof of guilt. Only by espousing Leftist social policy can you be freed of the label. If you don’t, they can tattle on you to your employer. They can play a game like they did with Brendan Eich and force your resignation through a PR campaign. I remember seeing a site that was dedicated to “getting racists fired”. I won’t link to it here for obvious reasons.
Naturally, since such courts of public opinion have no legal standing, they also don’t follow the presumption of innocence or allow for the possibility of defense.
Now any debt you are carrying becomes an albatross around your neck. If you have no debt, and live well within your means, the SJWs can damage you. But they can’t destroy you, they can’t force ideological compliance with their dictates. Extensive debt forces a man to keep his opinions within the Overton Window. And then, using media and social pressure, the window can be moved to the position the Left desires, dragging you along with it (perhaps kicking and screaming, but dragged nonetheless).
Whether the promotion of debt was designed to do this, or whether the Left merely took advantage of circumstances, I can’t say. But regardless of whether or not this was intentional, it has happened. Avoiding debt and living within your means is a way to avoid a sort of new variant of slavery.
It is a consensual slavery, mind you, but that is neither new nor unique. In ancient times, selling yourself into slavery was a common practice, and carried with it certain benefits. A slave was likely to be fed and cared for as valuable property, and a freeman who could not feed himself or his family might have no other choice. It is understandable that some would do this, even if very unfortunate.
But today it is different. Most of the people who are selling themselves into slavery are doing so for frivolities they don’t really need, for nicer cars or fancy furniture, for more house than they need, or for vacations to exotic destinations. It is not merely unfortunate, it is stupid. Folks need to take debt a lot more seriously, and minimize it where possible.
As in ancient times, there may have been circumstances where debt was unavoidable, or the consensual slavery was preferable to the alternatives. But give the decision the gravity it deserves. Do not go into it lightly, and know what the real cost is. It’s not just the interest you pay. It’s not just the payments from your future labor, it’s also the right to say what you believe.
Usually, when you encounter an item with no definitive price tag, it is because the item is absurdly expensive. When a potential customer is forced to ask for the price, the salesman might gauge his wealth, his gullibility, his willingness to part with his money, and a myriad of other things before settling on what he believes he can get. It also provides an opportunity to sell the customer on the object, rather than merely counting on the item and its price to convince the potential buyer.
In simple terms, forcing another to be open about his wants, and being closed off on your own, gives a man a decided bargaining advantage.
Lately, we’ve seen this at work with Antifa, BLM, #TheResistance, and other assorted left-wing groups. Grievances are produced, from slavery, to the plight of Native Americans, to American foreign adventures in the Middle East. Being honest with ourselves, some of these grievances have at least a historical merit to them. But for such leftist groups, the price for burying the grievance is obfuscated behind buzzwords and jargon. We must dismantle the cisheteropatriarchy, we must check our privilege, we must become a positive advocate for change. Everything from microaggressions to cultural appropriation are cited as examples of these things.
But I ask, what change?
Allow me to step into the shoes of one of Babylon 5’s villains, Mr. Morden, and ask the question: “what do you want?”
Well, leftists? What do you want? What is your price for putting away identity politics and your incessant portrayals of right-wing racism, sexism, homophobia, and islamophobia? These portrayals have silenced some of us, enraged others, and sent many conservatives running for the political closet. And once there, they still voted right-wing. Thus we now have one Donald J. Trump, despite all predictions to the contrary.
Some of us, like the esteemed Francis at Liberty’s Torch,have made peace with the incessant accusations and said something to the effect of “if you think that means I’m a racist then fine, I’m a racist. Now what?” Others, like myself, maintain that the portrayal of racism as the greatest of all evils is a mistake, dredged up because of the relative historical freshness of Nazi evil, and America’s own struggles with slavery. These evils most Americans are familiar with, but judging from the proliferation of Che Guevara t-shirts, the evils of Communism are less well understood.
And so racism becomes the number one evil in America, a sort of 21st century red scare, except there are even fewer to play the part of the reds (and many more actual reds).
All of that is immaterial, however. What is the end goal of the leftist? What does he want? What does his ideal America (or world, for those of a globalist persuasion) look like? Who gets to live there? What becomes of us and others who do not fit this progressive vision of the future?
When asked, leftists are often quite silent on the price. Just today, one explained that I should google the matter (never mind that I’ve exhausted google as a resource for this) because she didn’t want to “perform free emotional labor” on my behalf. Naming the price is now something that, in itself, costs money. Imagine if you asked the salesman what the price of a thing was, and he replied “you have to pay me to find out.”
Like the little psychological trick of decreasing sticker shock with slick salesmanship, the left understands that by hiding the price, they increase the possibility of ripping off some gullible idiot. Namely, us. And it works well enough on some. Enough that the thought of being accused of racism or prejudice is enough to elicit outright fear in many, not just an answer to the question.
Once an accusation of racism is leveled, very little is sufficient to dismiss it. Do you have many friends of the race in question? RationalWiki tells you that this is insufficient (after all, Hitler liked one Jew). You’re still a racist. What if, instead, you married a black woman, loved her and her family, and had a child with her? Well, you’re still a racist, because as some Puppy-kickers explained on Facebook (they have since deleted the posts in question, but I saved a screenshot, and Brad Torgersen can confirm it), black pussy doesn’t mean you aren’t racist. The Puppy-kickers even made this into a t-shirt. This argument was recently resurrected on Twitter by Talib Kweli Greene where he explained that if you marry an Indian woman, you’re still a racist, you just like Indian pussy.
So your friends, family, and relationships are dismissed. The accusation still stands. And remember, you are guilty unless proven innocent. And to prove your innocence, you must embrace leftist politics. That is the only accepted coin. And even by doing that, you would still have to abase yourself thoroughly and completely. Meanwhile, a woman who murdered her own 4 year old son applied to Harvard, and was denied. Naturally, this had something to do with racism, according to Vox.com. Of course it has little or nothing to do with being a convicted murderer of a child.
Ultimately, the choice is this: convert to leftism, or risk being tarred as a racist with no possible way to prove otherwise, because you are guilty until proven innocent, and all evidence except leftist political sentiments will be summarily dismissed as insufficient.
Meanwhile, a reasonable man might be inclined to ask the price of buying this weapon off the left. What would it take for them to put it away?
Their rants and raves on this matter are difficult to parse. Ta-Nehisi Coates penned a long piece in support of reparations, and when I first read it I expected a concrete answer to the question “what do you want?” Instead, we were treated to a historical lecture on the plight of blacks in America. We already knew this. Everybody knows about slavery, Jim Crow, and discrimination against blacks. How can anyone not know? The media has been bombarding us with these things for as long as I’ve been alive. And if the media wasn’t, BLM sure has been making a rather more raw effort at doing so. We get it. These things happened, and blacks got a raw deal.
What I want is a price. What are the demands? What do they really want?
I suspect the reason the demands aren’t named is that the sticker shock is likely to be quite mighty. I recall reading some time ago (and I can’t remember where presently, but if any of my readers know, please reply in the comments) that one black leader suggested a one-time payoff of $1 million to each black citizen. That bill would come out to approximately $36 trillion, approximately double the GDP of the United States, and likely an impossible sum. But to be honest, I suspect the left’s real demands would be much more expensive, and involve something much more Marxist than a massive one-time payment. The left would probably want to ensure the racist right-wingers never got to express their racism again, and would need to be actively suppressed. Somebody has to be the kulaks when things go bad, after all.
In the end, it’s just like Barack Obama’s campaign of hope and change. What change? How much will it cost? Hopeful for whom? These are questions the left leaves unanswered. There are never any (accurate) price tags on their merchandise. And so, I’ve no interest in buying.
The esteemed Sarah Hoyt has written a great followup to Marxism: the Bug Wearing an Edgar Suit. As we know, the Left infiltrates institutions, guts them, and wears the skin of the destroyed institution, demanding the respect once due to the original. They then use this to destroy individuals who do not cooperate with the politically correct narrative. Marxists may be terrible economists, and inverted moralists, but they are quite good at playing political games. It may be the only real talent they have.
Unfortunately that talent is generally sufficient to launch them to the fore.
Sarah explains for us:
There was a time — listen to me, children — when the left had the power to utterly destroy anyone they chose to.
They would descend in a swarm, find some little thing you had said, take it out of context, then pound you with it until you no longer had a job, a marriage, any friends willing to admit to knowing you.
Actually it wasn’t even required that they take something you said and take it out of context. They controlled all the gate keeping positions and a whisper campaign could go out — the equivalent of having your papers stamped PU for Politically Unreliable — and depending on how much money they could make off you, you’d either be turned out without references (so to put it) or, in my field, be kept in midlist durance vile. (In other fields there are equivalents, where you do all the work, but never get anywhere with money, let alone power.)
This is partly how they GOT all the gatekeeping positions, and kept them, or in other words, how they gutted all the important institutions of our culture and then wore the institutions’ skin, demanding respect.
Most of us on the Right have dealt with this. The options were generally to hide your political views, and stuff yourself into the Conservative closet, or to suffer significant penalties to your career, your social life, and your income. The Left made Conservatism expensive in terms of social capital. However, as Sarah tells us, the Left had to spend vast amounts of capital themselves in order to achieve this. They had to take over academia, the media, entertainment, and infiltrate pretty much every sizable institution in the country. In simple terms, they needed a monopoly.
Because if a Right-winger had the ability to leave the places where the Left held sway, he could no longer be silenced.
The Edgar suit has been slipping away for quite some time now. In 2016, the media’s skin suit slipped off entirely. Their hatred of Trump was so great, and their love of Hillary so complete, that the skin suit cracked and fell apart. Everyone knows the media is partisan now. The fiction of an unbiased, impartial purveyor of news has fallen away forever. And here’s the kicker: all of this vast expenditure of social capital was insufficient to topple Donald Trump’s campaign. They put all their chips into the pot, and still couldn’t buy victory.
They continue to attack Rightists this way, and they enjoyed some success with Milo (though he avoided complete defeat, too), but increasingly, they require cooperation from the Right itself in order to destroy enemies. Treacherous, dishonest blowhards like Evan McMullin are solicited by the Left for cooperative action, because the Left lacks the ability to win these battles alone any longer.
And even that was insufficient to totally destroy their chosen target. They did some damage, but Milo was left standing.
Even if a Rightist may lose such a conflict, it behooves us to fight to the end, tooth-and-nail, because even a Leftist victory is Pyrrhic for them, now. Force them to spend ever-more absurd amounts of money and social capital. Bankrupt them on the social stage. Make victory so utterly expensive that even they are afraid to pay the price.
It’s like punching a bully in the nose. You may win the resulting fight, or you may lose, but rest assured, the bully will now have to add this to his mental calculus: if I attack this man, he’ll punch me in the face.
And, increasingly, we are winning these engagements, because the accumulated respect due to original institutions is fading. The skin suit is rotting. Edgar’s carcass is slipping away, revealing the alien cockroach festering underneath the maggot-infested sack of meat.
Every time the left pulls that lever for the outrage machine, they’re spending capital. Every time they start a witch hunt, the skin suit slips a little and the respect we owed the gutted institution is lost.
It won’t be long till our only reaction to outrageous accusations is what it already is in Science Fiction outside their circles: point and make duck noises.
Sarah makes an excellent point here. Someday these fights won’t even be serious any longer. We will laugh at them. They will be outside, looking in. But make no mistake, even then we must remain vigilant. The Marxist is always looking for his way in, and the Marxist will always be with us. Its overly-simplistic moral relativism will always appeal to some, and will always be manipulated by those seeking it as a path to personal power. Call it whatever you will, but even the ancient Greeks understood it well enough:
Remember your Aristophanes:
Praxagora: I want all to have a share of everything and all property to be in common; there will no longer be either rich or poor; […] I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. […]
This election year has been Hell. The mudslinging, the hate, the divide… it’s grown to monumental proportions. But what is truly shocking is the level of outright stupidity pandered by the media. We’ve long known that the media was in the tank for the Democrats. That much was obvious to anyone right-of-center who possessed one or two functional brain cells. But we’ve reached a new low in media bias, wherein they are peddling things so obviously untrue that I wonder how even the most die-hard Leftist could possibly believe it.
This is what we in the punditry business call “going the full potato.”
This is so stupid, so bizarrely biased and obviously false that I cannot even bring myself to fully fisk it. And I just got done fisking a guy who thought he could best serve black people by never listening to rap music unless they gave him explicit permission to do so, after he performed faithful service to Black Lives Matter, of course. Yes, our friendly neighborhood Time magazine hack has gone straight past retarded, and into full potato territory. Observe:
And, three: To what specific period of American greatness are you wanting us to return? When black folk suffered segregation after slavery? When women had no right to vote or control their own bodies? When gay brothers and lesbian sisters felt ceaseless hate? When we stole land from the Native Americans? When we sent Japanese families to internment camps? When America lynched Mexicans? I just need Trump to give me some clarity on the time period he wishes to travel back to.
Here’s some news for mister snarky liberal bias, over at Time. You, sir, are among the dumbest creatures to ever walk the Earth. There is protoplasmic amoebic slime with greater insight into the world than you. I cannot even bring myself to capitalize your name, for capitalization is reserved for sentient beings, not for idiotic fungi growing on the dungheap of liberal media.
Just once, I want to see one of these morons take a trip the Middle East and fight for gay rights there, agitate to stop slavery in Africa going on right now, or stop the lynchings and killing ISIS is perpetrating today. These aren’t principles for them. They are just talking points for why they hate America so much. But even then, they don’t really believe any of this garbage. Their hatred for America is rooted in a sort of quasi-elitist “well, we should be running things” unenlightened self-interest.
Oh, and by the way, the darling of the Left, Franklin D. Roosevelt was the one that put Japanese into camps. Funny how that little tidbit gets forgotten and buried.
We have to be at peak SJW by this point, I cannot imagine them lowering their intelligence any further. This is a pearl of stupidity the likes of which I’ve never seen before. Witness it brothers, you may never see its like again.
As we approach peak Social Justice convergence, things are becoming increasingly more bizarre. America is going collectively insane, and insanely collective. At the forefront of this is a notion that white people need to hate themselves, and work as hard as they can against their own interests.
This goes by various names, like “decolonization”, which was used by one group of SJWs in reference to science. Decolonizing science, one South African woman said, would require throwing away the scientific method, and relying on literal witchcraft. But here in America, the more traditional way of expressing it is to remove “systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia” from science. This includes such things as not referring to your newborn baby as a boy or a girl, but some kind of gender-neutral designation. One article refers to this as “misgendering starts at birth.” Then we have the instance where a little girl dresses up in traditional Japanese garb, and an SJW has to insert his, her, or it-self into the conversation and claim cultural appropriation. A Japanese individual puts the SJW in its place by saying “the only reason you have a problem with this is because that little girl is white and you know it is acceptable on tumblr to crap all over white people.” Good show, sir.
Who comes up with these shitty slogans, anyway?
But the subject of today’s fisk has gone over a much deeper deep end, so to speak. He rants about how whiteness is always toxic. Observe:
One of the sturdiest myths of whiteness is that it’s only toxic when it’s tangibly destructive to bodies of color. In the experience of this white writer, as soon as the topics of race or Black Lives Matter come up in white spaces, tones of defensiveness bloom in the room. There’s a ubiquity of declarations beginning “But—” and we all scurry to enumerate for one another all the examples that might prove how we ourselves are not actually racist.
Translation: it is unacceptable to defend yourself against charges of racism. You are not allowed to prove your innocence because there is no innocent white man. Being white is de facto proof of racism. It is the original sin of Toxic Whiteness, a concept stolen from Christianity and warped into a tool to beat people over the head with in order to steal their lunch money. Said author is the sucker losing his lunch money to this idiocy.
I’m tired of it. Some of us have been working on behalf of the Movement for Black Life every day for 23 months and still can locate vestiges of our racism. I need to stop and check my language and reactions so often that I feel like my life has been made with crude stop motion technology.
At times, I almost pity these SJWs. Can you imagine living your life the way he describes it? A stop-motion of constant worrying and stressing that something you do may be called racism by someone, somewhere. These people cannot eat food without worrying about cultural appropriation, or open their mouths without stressing that someone will be offended by their words. They can’t think, talk, act, or do anything except “check their privilege.” It must be a miserable existence. My pity is withheld only because this misery is entirely self-imposed.
Just because you assure yourself and your friends that you’ve never insulted or aggressed a person of color, doesn’t mean your whiteness isn’t still toxic. It’s not “good” that you’ve never harmed a person of color; it’s an entry-level prerequisite of human life.
An “entry-level prerequisite of human life” is to have never harmed a person of color (a fuzzy definition that has, at times, included white women like Anita Sarkeesian, because it’s politically convenient)? So a bare minimum of human life is to have never insulted someone who isn’t white. Think on that for a moment. That’s the author’s view here. God forbid you ever flicked off a bad driver who happened to be black, you are not not even accounted as human. Yes, that sounds overly literal, but it’s important to point out here. SJWs believe that if you aren’t in political agreement with them, you are inhuman, and having been suitably dehumanized, it is now permissible for them to do whatever they want to you.
Our focus now must be on what we are explicitly doing to detoxify our whiteness. Voting Democrat means nothing. Holding open a door for a person of color means nothing. Listening to Billie Holiday or Chance the Rapper: you should stop feeling permission to do so until you’ve committed yourself to a form of living that is overtly pro-Black. The list goes on.
And the list has been going on for a few hundred years now.
What follows is an appeal to my white peers, as well as to myself.
So if you want to listen to rap music (I don’t, by the way), you must ask for permission, and live in an overtly pro-Black manner. Otherwise, you are not allowed to listen to the music. Is this starting to sound utterly insane yet? This isn’t a case of being respectful of other people, it’s a case of explicitly living your life as a slave. At least the slaves in the antebellum world were not volunteers for the institution. One imagines that they were quite unwilling. But today’s SJW slaves are willingly embracing chains as self-imposed punishment for crimes they didn’t even commit. “Massa,” says the SJW, “can I listen to rap music if I slap myself in the face, kick myself in the nuts, and apologize for thousands of years of bullshit I didn’t do?”
What follows is a series of specific cases the author cites to prove that racism is real, and white people suck. He cites 5 or 6 of them, and then assumes this proves all whites are racist, and toxic, and need to be decolonized or whatever.
You know that when a Black athlete raises a fist or takes a knee rather than put his hand over his heart during the performance of the most infamous piece of jingoist doggerel in the world, he’s going to receive death threats and much scorn for the rest of his life. Jot down a tally of the minutes you’ve spent not just in defending a Black athlete’s right to refuse the anthem, but, more critically, in explaining to your white peers why it’s necessary for all of us to reject that anthem.
So the national anthem is a piece of “infamous jingoistic doggerel”. Why is this man still living in America? Why doesn’t he move to Somalia where there are more black people he might enslave himself for, and where they do not have such anthems, mainly because they don’t have a functioning country — but hey, let’s not be overly picky here, right? If you don’t like America, then leave. That goes for self-hating white people as much as it goes for black people who think America sucks and the cops are all out to kill them.
You know what I’d do if I sincerely thought the cops were all out to kill me here? I’d get on a fucking boat and leave. Nobody does that because nobody really believes any of this shit, least of all the people protesting it.
You know some of your neighbors grab a phone or jump on Facebook when a Black man travels down the sidewalk in your majority-white neighborhood. Count on your fingers how many times you’ve reached out to that neighbor to ask them to check this reaction. Count the times you’ve admitted to yourself you sometimes have this gut reaction to Black life (because you’re a white person who grew up in America).
Well, considering the crime stats in this country, if you see a black man dressed in gangbanger style, it’s entirely rational to grab your phone, or grab your purse, or call neighborhood watch, or whatever. Of course, this goes for white kids who dress that way too, but point being the author is telling white people to tell other white people that responding rationally to a situation is racism.
Investigate your checkbook register. Tally how much of your surplus cash you’ve shared with a person of color who’s struggling financially. If it’s less than $100 dollars for fiscal year 2016, you’ve got a long road ahead of you. If it’s $0, what the fuck is your problem?
The author is centering his entire life around “persons of color”. Everything, again, is about serving them. What about his own family, friends and relations? My money goes first to help my own family. I have a wife, and a son, and a brother, etc… My priority is helping them. Only if they are doing okay do I even think about spending my money on folks I don’t know. But the author says that if you haven’t given money to random “persons of color” then you’re an evil bad person.
But what about the multitude of less-obvious ways we remain carriers of toxic whiteness? What about continuing to patronize local establishments like the Tap Room, after we learn that some Black friends, after speaking up because one of their credit cards had been lost by staff at that bar, get the cops called on them by the white owner because she didn’t like their tone of voice?
The author cites a random anecdotal incident for which we have no other information, and then says we should all hate a particular establishment without any sort real description of what even happened.
What about continuing to passively tolerate, as university professors, the fact that our departments have zero Black or Brown faculty? And what about the rationales we quickly haul out when confronted with this fact?
I don’t know where this guy works, but I’ve seen plenty of “Black or Brown” faculty at universities. Now, affirmative action means some of them probably shouldn’t be there. But still…
What about the fact that we send our white kids to schools in “better” districts?
I will send my son to the best school I can afford for him — which may very well be homeschool, by the way. He sure as hell won’t be going to public school. But what kind of asshole prioritizes random kids of color, or whatever, over his own children? This is a slave talking, folks, a fucking slave, who feels he has to go up to people of color, or whatever PC term is favored today, and ask “massa, can I listen to rap? Massa, can I send my kid to a good school? Massa, here’s all my money. No, massa, I never disrespect YOU.”
What about the fact that this Mac is brand-new and this white male body will probably never be violated, but my Black friend has no personal computer at the moment, and every single time she walks down the sidewalk, she’s aware that at any moment someone in a truck may say something disgusting to her? What defenses do we need to muster to not be obsessed with this disparity?
Your “black friend” has no personal computer, and you have a Mac. Well, mister slave, why don’t you go to her and say “mistress, here’s my computer”? And then you say that someone in a truck might say something disgusting to her? You have spewed disgusting lies all over your own site, shithead, and you are worried that someone in a truck might someday say something she finds offensive?
I’ll tell you what my “defense” is against this “disparity.” I don’t give a rat’s ass. It’s categorically not my problem.I have my own problems to worry about, like SJWs trying to ruin my business because they don’t like my politics, or the United States possibly electing a felonious liar to high office (yes, I’m talking about Hillary. Trump is no rose in the garden either, but fuck anything looks nice next to Hillary. I’d vote for a steaming pile of horseshit over her.).
Look. I don’t want the government instituting racial policies against her citizens of any kind. No Jim Crow. No affirmative action. No forced segregation. No force desegregation. Leave it alone. If that makes me a racist, then fuck it all, I’m a racist. Francis over at Liberty’s Torch,said as much when he was equally exasperated with this blatant bullshit. I guess they will just call you a racist no matter what you do. After all, this guy who has dedicated himself and his entire existence to “persons of color” still thinks he is, himself, a racist.
What about the domestic effects of this schizoid daily existence wherein we have a moral obligation to despise this construct called whiteness, yet go on trying to love our “white” selves? How are we raising our children to understand that in America, white skin is a weapon they will need to spend the rest of their lives unloading?
Read that again, folks. White skin is, according to this man, a weapon that they must dedicate their lives to unloading. I wonder what gangbangers in Chicago are blowing each other away with these days? 9mms? Saturday Night Special .22s? I guess they missed the memo. All you need to do is flash some white skin and BLAM! Everybody dies. Why, a whole naked white person must be like a nuclear bomb. That would explain my reaction to Lena Dunham: one view of that shit, and I legitimately do want to slit my wrists and pray to God that a Sweet Meteor of Death wipes out all human life.
This man hates himself. He probably cries himself to sleep because he feels his skin is the wrong color. But don’t worry, SJW, you can be like Shaun King and declare yourself to be blacker than Snoop. Transracialism will be the next big thing.
Are you continuing to feed your kids the fiction that the profession of policing is a respectable one? And if you are, do you understand the conflict produced inside your child’s developing psyche when tomorrow afternoon she learns that, yet again, another Black unarmed woman or man has been killed by a cop?
So nobody’s kids should be cops. Okay. So basically nobody should be a cop, right? I’m sure that will make the ghetto one lovely suburban paradise. I mean, I was thinking the wrong things all this time. All we needed to do was get rid of the cops, and snap our fingers, and suddenly every crack house would turn into a mansion. Good idea. Don’t see how I missed it.
Is pulling a trigger once, lethally, any worse than pulling it subtly a bunch of times every day? If I haven’t yet offered my love and labor to the movement for Black Lives, can I prove I’m any better than Darren Wilson?
Don’t even know what to say to this, except that it’s weapons grade stupidity.
Why is it some of us encounter the phrase “Keep Ypsi Black” and feel offended?
For the same reason that you lose your shit whenever regular folks (not all of them white, mind you) try to keep Section 8 out of their neighborhoods.
Why do we think, even for a moment, we should offer any sort of opinion about Black Life to our Black friends?
Because I am a Free Man, not a Slave like you. I will offer my opinions to whomever I choose. If a friend doesn’t like it, he’s free to no longer be my friend. That’s Freedom, for you. You can select your own friends. Imagine that? Does a slave like you get his “friends” (read: masters) appointed for him?
In spite of any ameliorative steps we feel we’ve already taken, and in opposition to any notion of our having already been immunized, there are only two treatments for toxic whiteness:
1) We shut the fuck up and move back to Europe, the U.K., or Scandinavia.
2) We step up.
There is no move between these two, yet most of us go on believing we’ve discovered one.
Funny thing is, if Europe wasn’t even more insane in this regard, I might have moved there already. I was lamenting this earlier. If you’re a freedom-minded anti-Communist, it used to be that America was your last bastion, your place of retreat. Cuban exiles, Soviet defectors, South Vietnamese, etc… they all came to escape the hellish tyrannies that had genuinely oppressed them. But now there is nowhere left for folks like me.
We cannot go to Europe, and in any event many of them think us boorish colonial oppressors anyway. So you have given us the option of “stepping up” which, essentially, means voluntary enslavement where every opinion must be blessed by your masters, where your labor must be given to them, where you cannot have fun or listen to music without their consent, where you cannot even talk to them about anything other than those subjects which they have given you permission for. Speak only when spoken to.
You are giving the remaining freedom-minded peoples, concentrated here in America, the choice of extinction, exile, or slavery. You are backing a rabid animal against a wall.
I suspect you will not like where this is leading you. But I don’t care. I have sympathy for those slaves who suffered in America at one time. If any were alive today, I would offer them pity and succor, for they deserved it. They truly suffered. But you have embraced your chains willingly. I have no pity for you, and were you to turn up destitute on my doorstep, I’d feed my dog an extra helping before even considering tossing the crumbs to you.
Francis posted something very thoughtful today. The story he links to I’ve read before, and I also recall a Twilight Zone episode that was similar (I’m not sure if they were explicitly related, or if it was coincidence). But it goes back to a subject that’s been on my mind for a very long time and for which, like Francis, I could write volumes on if I had the time.
We are forbidden to say certain things, or even to hold certain opinions and beliefs. And it’s difficult to even know what the prohibitions are, for they are not written down anywhere. There is no legal document to which we may turn to discover if our opinions are prohibited. Indeed, what was permissible yesterday may be banned tomorrow. Everything is potentially offensive. Every thought a potential thoughtcrime.
The one thing Orwell got wrong in 1984 was that he thought totalitarian dystopia would look like Hell, that an outside observer could clearly define it as such. It doesn’t. The Evil Empire doesn’t look overtly evil to the observer. It doesn’t have an evil flag, an evil symbol, and evil Big Brother symbolism in plain view. We are conditioned to think of evil as a caricature, like the Empire in Star Wars. Black costumes, despotic overlords, and the religious worship of hatred and darkness. Evil would self-report as evil, in other words. A tyrant would call himself lord of the universe, or something equally silly. That’s what our entertainment tells us, often enough, anyway.
Tyrants figured out some time ago that it was more effective to cloak evil in the costume of good. To wrap tyranny in velvet. To give totalitarianism a righteous, virtuous face and claim that it is doing great good. Nobody thought evil could be nice, and still be evil. And so the people were fooled for awhile.
Today, I doubt most people are fooled, but they are still controlled whether they know it or not. One thing I’ve discovered when talking to friends and relatives is that our opinions and beliefs are remarkably similar in private settings, where we are relatively certain Big Brother is not listening, and thus prohibited in our speech by what we might call polite society. Oh, there are the usual disagreements between people who are different, but nothing explicitly banned. No taboos or proscriptions on what we may or may not discuss.
John Derbyshire once referred to “the talk” and was deprived of a job because of it. He spoke publicly of a prohibited topic that is often discussed by people in private settings, and suffered the punishment.
Donald Trump caught flak in public for having said raunchy things about women. Yet all men know that most of us talk that way on occasion when we are sure Big Brother is not around. Trump’s sin, then, wasn’t saying things that any man might say per se, but in Big Brother catching him in the act. Whatever you may think of him as a candidate (and his flaws are legion), this particular “offense” was nothing more than an Orwellian thoughtcrime punished by a complicit media establishment.
What, you thought Big Brother didn’t exist just because there are no billboards proclaiming him?
The enforcement apparatus is not so blatantly obvious as in Orwell’s book, but it is there nonetheless. There are cameras in every phone, cameras on the street corners, microphones and surveillance equipment everywhere. Trump spoke on a “hot mic”, but that is a trick often used by journalists. “Oops, we accidentally left the mic on and it so happened to record this thoughtcrime…” And remember, everything said on the Internet is forever. SJW enforcers have used my own words on the Internet against me.
Beyond the physical surveillance state, we have the Social Justice enforcers, on constant lookout for perceived violations. If none are discovered, new ones may be invented. SJWs will infiltrate various groups, and then take up policing duties within them. You must be rigorous in vetting people to whom you may talk freely. And even then, SJWs may find ways to insert themselves into your gatherings, or private groups. Even though you may know them for what they are, their presence means you must follow the prohibitions. Your thoughtcrimes are stymied before they can begin, and they are thus not allowed to spread. There may even come a time where they offer rewards to friends who turn in their compatriots for thoughtcrimes. A “hot mic” might find its way into your living room conversations.
Big Brother is everywhere, and we must be increasingly on guard for his presence. This sort of censorship is fast becoming internalized in people. The fear of violating the taboos grows so great that there is a temptation to dispense with the thoughtcrime before it even fully materializes in your mind.
Did you think this was an accident? That it was your own sense of morality that created it? No, no. It is no accident.
I don’t know what to do about it. The tyrants have a strong lockdown on us now. But so many Americans, even conservative Americans, are blissfully unaware of the iron fist, because it is wrapped in hopey-changey, love-and-peace velvet. Though, I am seeing signs that many are waking up and becoming aware of it. Still, evil has never worn a more effective disguise. Big Brother is hidden behind the clothing of equality, niceness, and inoffensiveness. But he is still Big Brother.